Hop Wah v. Crosby
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-01420
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Hop Wah v. Crosby, Judge Schofield dismissed claims against seven defendants on immunity grounds and ordered service on two others.
John Hop Wah’s claims against six prosecutors and a district-attorney investigator were dismissed based on prosecutorial immunity, and his claim against Vasiliki Karlis was dismissed based on witness immunity. The claims against Adeyemi Adebola and Cordell Crosby remained pending for service; the order did not decide their merits.
What happened
In Hop Wah v. Crosby, John Hop Wah, representing himself, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law allowing damages claims for rights violations. The court reviewed the complaint because Hop Wah was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court dismissed the claims against six prosecutors and a dental physician. It said the prosecutors were protected by prosecutorial immunity and the dental physician by witness immunity. The court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the two remaining defendants, Adeyemi Adebola and Cordell Crosby, and referred Hop Wah to a free legal clinic for people representing themselves.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order on August 9, 2023. The order did not decide the merits of the claims against Adebola or Crosby. It also denied fee-free status for any appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hop Wah v. Crosby · No. 1:23-cv-01420
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 9, 2023
Background
John Hop Wah brought this self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for certain rights violations. He named nine defendants: Adeyemi Adebola and Cordell Crosby, identified as Department of Homeless Services police officers; Cyrus Vance and Alvin Bragg, described as former and current New York County District Attorneys; Assistant District Attorneys James Zaleta, Aaron Ginandes, and Kelli Clancy; Mark Duggan, an investigator for the District Attorney; and Vasiliki Karlis, a dental physician at Bellevue Hospital.
The court had previously allowed Hop Wah to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying court fees. When a person proceeds this way, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from that relief.
Rulings on the Defendants
The court dismissed the claims against Vance, Bragg, Zaleta, Ginandes, Clancy, and Duggan. It held that prosecutorial immunity barred Hop Wah’s damages claims arising from the defendants’ criminal prosecution of him. The court explained that this absolute immunity protects prosecutors for functions closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case and can also protect employees assisting prosecutors under their direction. The court further stated that allegations of bad faith and bias did not overcome the immunity.
The court also dismissed the claims against Karlis under witness immunity. It explained that witnesses have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages liability for their testimony, even when the testimony is alleged to have been false.
The court did not dismiss the claims against Adebola and Crosby at this stage. Because Hop Wah was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and complete the forms needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them. The order states that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Hop Wah requests an extension. The opinion does not decide the merits of the claims against Adebola or Crosby.
Additional Directions and Disposition
The court directed that the New York County District Attorney’s Office be notified because its records might be relevant. It also directed that an information package be mailed to Hop Wah and referred him to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, a private free legal clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore dismissed the claims against Vance, Bragg, Zaleta, Ginandes, Clancy, Duggan, and Karlis; ordered service on Adebola and Crosby; and made the additional referrals and notifications described above.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.