Sowell v. Annucci

Background

Randy Sowell filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by state or local officials. He alleged that parole and correction officials unlawfully detained him multiple times pursuant to parole warrants, including after a date when he believed he should have been released. He also attempted to bring claims for his minor daughter, D.D.S.S. The court had previously separated unrelated claims and transferred claims arising in New Jersey, leaving in this case the parole-related detention claims and claims asserted for D.D.S.S.

Sowell described arrests and detentions in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. He also alleged that parole officials restricted his travel to New Jersey and required him to live at a shelter. He sought release from his present custody, expungement of criminal matters and convictions, damages, and other relief.

Claims for D.D.S.S.

The court dismissed without prejudice any claims Sowell asserted on behalf of D.D.S.S. Because Sowell is not an attorney, he could not represent her in federal court. The court explained that D.D.S.S.’s claims could be heard only if an attorney filed them on her behalf in this court. The court also dismissed the New York City Housing Authority Albany Houses from this action because that defendant was associated with claims brought on D.D.S.S.’s behalf. The court treated the amended complaint as asserting only Sowell’s own claims, including any damages he sought for being unable to see his daughter.

Claims against state officials and agencies

The court dismissed Sowell’s Section 1983 claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision because the agency is protected by constitutional immunity from federal suits. It also dismissed claims against Anthony Annucci in his official capacity for the same reason. The court found no facts showing that Annucci was personally involved in the alleged violations. It noted that the exception allowing some suits against state officials for ongoing violations and prospective relief did not apply because Sowell did not allege an ongoing violation or seek qualifying prospective relief.

Claims against city officials and the Department of Correction

The court dismissed the claims against Cynthia Brann because Sowell did not allege that she was personally involved in his parole revocation or detention. The court also found that he did not plead facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violations. Claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed because a city agency is not an entity that can generally be sued separately from the City of New York. The court declined to treat those claims as claims against the City because Sowell had not alleged a city policy, custom, or practice causing his injuries.

Parole revocation and detention claims

The court held that Sowell’s claim that he was held beyond his projected parole-release date appeared to challenge the validity of his parole revocation. A Section 1983 claim cannot proceed when success would necessarily show that a confinement or its duration was invalid, unless the conviction, sentence, or parole revocation has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. Sowell did not allege that a court had invalidated his parole revocation, so the court dismissed damages claims based on that theory. It also held that the parole officer was absolutely immune from claims based on decisions to revoke parole or initiate and present parole-revocation proceedings.

The court noted that Sowell had alleged that a state-court petition for release had been granted, but he did not explain the basis for that ruling. The court allowed him to replead this theory if he could show that the state court had actually overturned or declared invalid the parole revocation before he filed this federal action. The court instructed him to identify or provide the state-court decision if possible.

The court dismissed false-imprisonment claims based on the September 2019, August 2020, and February 2022 arrests. Sowell did not allege that the related parole warrants were facially invalid or unsupported by reasonable cause, and his alleged arrests provided reasonable grounds for the warrants. The court also dismissed the claim based on the New Jersey warrant because Sowell did not allege that it was the sole basis for his detention or that it was facially invalid.

The court dismissed the claim concerning the July 27, 2021 arrest as pleaded. Sowell alleged that he was held beyond statutory deadlines for parole hearings, but he did not state when his preliminary or revocation hearings occurred or identify which deadline was violated. The court granted leave to replead this claim if he could provide those dates and identify the officials responsible for any delay.

Travel and shelter claims

The court dismissed the claim concerning parole restrictions on travel to New Jersey. It explained that parole includes conditions that limit a person’s liberty and that travel restrictions may be imposed without violating constitutional rights. Sowell did not allege facts showing that the restriction was arbitrary or unreasonable.

The court also rejected the claim concerning his required residence at the Bellevue Men’s Shelter. Although the court recognized that parole may create a limited duty of care, Sowell did not allege conduct sufficiently extreme to violate due process. At most, his allegations suggested negligence, which was not enough for a constitutional claim.

Present confinement and state-law claims

The court held that Sowell could not obtain immediate release through a Section 1983 action. A person seeking release from custody must use a federal petition challenging the fact or duration of confinement, after exhausting available state-court remedies. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, after dismissing the federal claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, for seeking monetary relief from defendants immune from that relief, and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Sowell 60 days to file a second amended complaint limited to two possible false-imprisonment theories: detention after a parole revocation had been invalidated, and detention caused by allegedly untimely parole proceedings following the July 27, 2021 arrest. If Sowell did not timely amend, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action and decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.