Mallo v. Vance

Background

Daniel Mallo, who was representing himself, sued Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Emily Bradford, and Jerrold Steigman in their individual and official capacities. The opinion describes Vance as the former New York County District Attorney and Bradford and Steigman as former assistant district attorneys. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. was automatically substituted for Vance as his successor in interest.

Mallo was convicted after a trial in New York County Supreme Court of second-degree grand larceny based on fabricating a mental-health disorder to fraudulently obtain Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. He received a fine, restitution, and a prison term of 18 to 54 months. The First Department affirmed his conviction. State courts later denied two motions to vacate the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal those rulings.

The New York Department of Corrections told Mallo on April 26, 2021, that he had completed his sentence and had been discharged from parole. He filed this federal action on December 8, 2021. He asked the court to vacate and expunge his conviction and restore his rights. He alleged that errors by prosecutors and the state trial court violated federal and state law, including his rights to present a defense and receive a fair trial.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court resolved the case under Rule 12(b)(1) and did not discuss the defendants’ additional arguments based on claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or failure to state a claim.

Habeas Claim

Mallo sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a procedure for challenging state custody in federal court. The court explained that a person must be “in custody” under the conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed. Being on supervised release or probation can satisfy that requirement, but collateral consequences of a fully completed sentence generally do not.

The court found that Mallo’s early discharge from parole on April 26, 2021, meant he was no longer in custody when he filed the action on December 8, 2021. The court therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction over his § 2254 claim.

Civil-Rights Claims

Mallo pleaded claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as an alternative to his habeas claim. The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents federal district courts from acting as appeals courts for state-court judgments.

The court found all four requirements satisfied: Mallo had lost in state court; he complained of injuries caused by his state conviction; he asked the federal court to review and reject that conviction; and the state judgment came before this federal case. Because granting Mallo’s requested relief would completely reverse his state conviction, the court held that it also lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the remainder of the complaint.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Mallo’s complaint with prejudice. It stated that amendment would be futile and therefore did not grant leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, close the case, and mail the opinion and order to Mallo.