Thomas v. Federal Government
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Thomas v. Federal Government, Judge Swain dismissed Glenn Thomas’s civil-rights complaint and conviction challenge, but allowed a later motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The order dismissed Glenn Macpherson Thomas’s claims for damages and release against the Federal Government, Judge Edgardo Ramos, and Michael H. Sporn. His challenge to his conviction and sentence was dismissed without prejudice to a possible motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after direct review.
What happened
In Thomas v. Federal Government, Glenn Thomas, who was incarcerated, sued the Federal Government, Judge Edgardo Ramos, and his former defense attorney, Michael H. Sporn. He sought damages, release from prison, and a different judge for further proceedings in his criminal case. He alleged that Judge Ramos and Mr. Sporn violated his constitutional rights during his prosecution, sentencing, and resentencing.
The court screened the complaint under the law requiring review of prisoners’ claims against government defendants. It concluded that Judge Ramos was protected from damages lawsuits for actions taken in his judicial role, that Mr. Sporn was not a government actor when serving as defense counsel, and that the Federal Government could not be sued for damages under the type of claim Thomas brought. The court also said that challenges to Thomas’s conviction or sentence and requests for release must be brought through a different procedure, not this civil-rights case.
Judge Swain dismissed the complaint. She declined to allow Thomas to amend his damages claims because amendment would be futile, and dismissed his challenge to his conviction and sentence without prejudice to a later motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after direct review. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Federal Government · No. 1:23-cv-04666
- Laura Swain
- June 20, 2023
Background
Glenn Macpherson Thomas, who was incarcerated at MDC Brooklyn, filed this action without a lawyer under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens action is a damages claim alleging that an individual federal officer violated the Constitution. Thomas sued the “Federal Government,” United States District Judge Edgardo Ramos, and Michael H. Sporn, one of Thomas’s former defense attorneys.
Thomas alleged that Judge Ramos mishandled parts of his criminal proceedings, including rulings on post-trial motions, the admission of a co-conspirator’s out-of-court statement, his ability to face an accuser, and the timing and substance of his sentencing and resentencing. He also alleged that Judge Ramos and Sporn violated his due-process rights. Thomas sought $15 million, immediate release from incarceration, and no supervised release.
The opinion recounts that a jury found Thomas guilty of four counts in 2014. The district court entered a 204-month sentence in 2021. On direct appeal, the Second Circuit granted the appeal in part, vacated the convictions on two firearm-related counts, and sent the case back for resentencing. Thomas was resentenced on May 10, 2023; according to his complaint, the new sentence was 168 months.
Court’s Analysis
Claims against Judge Ramos
The court held that judges are absolutely immune from damages claims for acts within their judicial responsibilities. Because Thomas’s allegations against Judge Ramos concerned actions arising from or related to Thomas’s criminal case, the court dismissed the damages claims against Judge Ramos under the prisoner-screening statutes.
Claims against defense counsel
The court explained that constitutional claims generally require conduct by a government actor. A defense attorney does not become a government actor merely by representing a criminal defendant. The court therefore concluded that Thomas could not state a damages claim against Sporn under either Bivens or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the allegations presented. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any possible state-law claims because it dismissed the federal claims.
Claims against the Federal Government
The court concluded that Bivens damages claims may be brought only against individual federal officials, not the Federal Government or a federal agency. It further held that sovereign immunity generally protects the United States from suit unless the government has waived that immunity. Because Thomas identified no applicable waiver, the court dismissed the damages claim against the Federal Government both because Bivens did not permit that defendant and because sovereign immunity applied.
Request for release
The court held that a challenge affecting the fact or length of a person’s confinement must be brought in a petition seeking relief from the conviction or sentence, rather than in a civil-rights action. For a federal prisoner, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is generally the proper procedure for challenging a conviction or sentence.
The court declined to treat Thomas’s complaint as a § 2255 motion because it had been filed under a different legal theory, and the court would have had to notify Thomas and give him an opportunity to withdraw it before doing so. The court also noted that Thomas’s direct appeal was not yet final and declined to recharacterize the complaint as a § 2255 motion while that appeal remained pending.
Amendment
Although courts ordinarily give an unrepresented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint when a valid claim might be stated, the court found amendment would be futile here. It noted that Thomas had previously brought related damages claims involving his defense counsel, the district judge, and the Federal Government, and that those claims had been dismissed on grounds including lack of government action, judicial immunity, and sovereign immunity.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Thomas’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). The court declined to grant leave to amend the Bivens damages claims. It dismissed Thomas’s challenge to his conviction and sentence without prejudice to his bringing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, if necessary, after direct review. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judgment was entered.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.