Hicks v. Ervin

Background

Darnell R. Hicks, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Ben Ervin, James Kastanis, and two unidentified defendants referred to as John Doe. The defendants appeared to be members of the Village of Ossining Police Department. Hicks alleged that, on April 8, 2021, he showed the defendants a video concerning an encounter at a building in Ossining, New York. According to Hicks, building management had called him a racial slur, and a maintenance worker had been running around saying that he had a gun. Hicks alleged that the defendants failed to include the relevant information in a police report and instead wrote a false statement.

Hicks cited due process, protection against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and other rights. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims against government officials for violating federal rights, along with state-law claims. The court had previously allowed Hicks to proceed without paying filing fees.

Legal standard

Because Hicks was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a legally valid claim plausible.

Court’s analysis

The court noted that Hicks did not allege that he had been arrested or taken into custody. It found that he did not provide facts showing that the defendants violated due process, the protection against self-incrimination, double-jeopardy protections, or another federal constitutional right.

The court instead understood Hicks to be claiming that the defendants violated his rights by failing to investigate his allegations or protect him from harm. The court held that government officials, including police officers, generally have no federal constitutional duty to investigate a person’s allegations or protect that person from harm. It identified two exceptions: when the government takes a person into custody and assumes responsibility for the person’s safety, and when government officials affirmatively create or increase a danger to the person. The court found that Hicks did not allege facts showing that either exception applied.

Disposition

The court dismissed Hicks’s § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed the action, while granting Hicks 60 days to file an amended complaint alleging additional facts that could state a valid § 1983 claim. The order did not finally resolve the state-law claims at that stage. It stated that if Hicks failed to amend or show cause for failing to do so, the court would enter judgment dismissing the action and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hicks permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.