Harris v. Vassallo

Background

Laquan Devota Harris, appearing without a lawyer, brought the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction and alleged violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. The complaint concerned events allegedly occurring inside the New York County Criminal Court at 100 Center Street between 2020 and 2023. Harris sought money damages.

The complaint named Judge Juan Merchant; Assistant District Attorney Neil Greenwell; Legal Aid attorney Rosemary Vasallo; Cases (Alternatives to Incarceration) Director Sarah Harris; “Court Officer Personnel”; and Meredith T. Harris alleged that one or more court officers sexually assaulted, “ambushed,” and handcuffed him. He also alleged unspecified misconduct by Merchant and Greenwell, policy violations by Greenwell and Sarah Harris, theft of property including $21,000 and unspecified documents, and manipulation and improper transfer. The court described the handwritten complaint as difficult to read.

Screening standard

Because Harris was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from a defendant immune from that relief. 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 facts to make liability plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Section 1983 claims

The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits suits for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The court concluded that the complaint did not state a viable § 1983 claim against any named defendant as pleaded.

Rosemary Vasallo

The court held that Vasallo, Harris’s Legal Aid attorney, was a private party and was not alleged to work for a state or other government body. Representation by private counsel, court-appointed counsel, or a public defender generally does not constitute the required state involvement for a § 1983 claim. The court therefore found that Harris had not stated a § 1983 claim against Vasallo.

Judge Juan Merchant

The court explained that judges are absolutely immune from damages suits for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. Harris did not allege facts showing that Merchant acted outside those responsibilities or outside his jurisdiction. Because the claims concerned acts arising from or related to cases before Merchant, the court dismissed the claims seeking money damages from him as barred by immunity and therefore frivolous under the filing-fee screening statute.

Assistant District Attorney Neil Greenwell

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages claims for acts within their official duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court found that Harris’s claims against Greenwell were based on actions within Greenwell’s official duties and associated with conducting a trial. The court dismissed those claims as seeking money from an immune defendant and therefore as frivolous under the screening statute.

Sarah Harris and Meredith T.

A § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Harris named Sarah Harris and Meredith T. but did not explain who they were or show that either was personally involved. The court also found that Harris provided almost no details about the alleged excessive force by court personnel or who participated in it.

State-law claims

Although Harris did not expressly invoke state law, the court considered whether the complaint might include related state-law claims. After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Harris might be asserting.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), which concern failure to state a claim and seeking money from an immune defendant. It granted Harris 60 days to replead his § 1983 claims in an amended complaint, including his excessive-force claim. The amended complaint had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, identified as an “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-4440 (LTS).

The order stated that if Harris did not file an amended complaint within the time allowed and could not show good cause, the court would enter judgment dismissing the action and would decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Harris fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.