Traore v. New York State Division of Parole

Background

Abdoulaye Traore, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against persons who violate constitutional rights while acting under state law. He alleged that the defendants’ conduct caused him to be held beyond his maximum parole expiration date. He sought $125 million in damages.

Traore alleged that he was released to parole supervision on October 15, 2019, with a maximum expiration date of November 2, 2021. He said that he obtained employment at Borough of Manhattan Community College and that defendants harassed him, leading the college’s director to contact the New York State Division of Parole. Traore alleged that, after a change in parole officers, he received no violations for approximately two years. He said that Defendant Parole Officer A. Hamilton filed several technical violation charges during the remaining 100 days of supervision. One alleged violation involved Traore’s mother; although she did not want to press charges and signed an affidavit stating that nothing criminal had occurred, Traore said he was criminally charged and arraigned. He was immediately released from the criminal case but remained detained on a parole hold based on technical violations.

By February 18, 2022, Traore had been released from custody and discharged from parole. The opinion states that he filed the complaint while proceeding without prepayment of filing fees. The Court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepayment of fees.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

The Court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The Court also explained that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Claims against the New York State Division of Parole. The Court ruled that the Division of Parole was an arm of New York State for immunity purposes. Because New York had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and Congress had not removed that immunity through § 1983, the Court held that Traore’s § 1983 claims against the Division were barred and dismissed them under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

Claims against PRS Tarji Smith and SPO Tucker. The Court held that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Traore did not describe how Smith or Tucker were involved and did not refer to them in the body of the complaint. The Court therefore dismissed the claims against Smith and Tucker for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Claim against Parole Officer A. Hamilton. The Court construed Traore’s allegation that Hamilton’s violation charges caused him to remain confined beyond his maximum expiration date as a challenge to the sentence imposed for the parole violation. Under the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, a person generally may not use a § 1983 damages action to challenge confinement or its duration unless the relevant conviction or sentence has already been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question through authorized proceedings. The Court stated that this rule applies to challenges based on parole revocation. Because Traore did not allege that any court had invalidated the sentence, the Court held that Heck barred his request for monetary relief against Hamilton and dismissed that claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Leave to amend and conclusion. The Court declined to allow Traore to amend the complaint because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The Court dismissed the complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.