Thomas v. Federal Government

Background

Glenn Macpherson Thomas, who was incarcerated at MDC Brooklyn and represented himself, brought an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens action is a claim for damages against an individual federal officer for an alleged constitutional violation. Thomas named the “Federal Government,” United States District Judge Edgardo Ramos, Second Circuit Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, and defense attorneys Michael Sporn and Jeremy Gutman.

Thomas alleged that Judge Ramos and Sporn caused a delay in his sentencing, that Chief Judge Livingston and the Second Circuit had interfered with or covered up issues concerning his appeal, and that Gutman had been ineffective in handling the appeal. He asserted claims involving the Eighth, Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendments, as well as fair trial, malicious prosecution, defamation, wrongful imprisonment, and ineffective assistance of counsel. He sought $100 million and immediate release from custody.

The opinion recounts that a jury found Thomas guilty in 2014 of four federal charges. He was sentenced in 2021 to a total of 204 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Second Circuit granted relief in part, vacated his convictions on two counts, and sent the case back for resentencing. Thomas was resentenced in May 2023, and the district court entered an amended judgment in June 2023. The opinion states that his direct appeal was not yet final when this action was decided.

Reasons for dismissal

The court screened the complaint under the statutes governing lawsuits filed without prepaying fees by prisoners. It explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from a defendant immune from such relief, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the damages claim against the “Federal Government” because a Bivens claim may be brought only against an individual federal official, not the federal government or a federal agency. The court also held that sovereign immunity generally protects the United States from suit unless it has consented to be sued, and Thomas had not identified a waiver applicable to his claim.

The court dismissed the claims against Judge Ramos and Chief Judge Livingston because judges have absolute immunity from damages claims based on actions within their judicial responsibilities. The court further held that Sporn and Gutman could not be treated as government actors merely because they represented Thomas as defense attorneys. Therefore, Thomas could not bring his constitutional damages claims against them under Bivens or Section 1983.

Conviction and release claims

The court held that a challenge affecting the fact or length of imprisonment must be brought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus rather than a civil-rights action. For a federal prisoner, Section 2255 is generally the procedure used to challenge a conviction or sentence.

The court declined to convert Thomas’s complaint into a Section 2255 motion because it had not given him notice and an opportunity to withdraw the complaint, and because his direct appeal was still pending. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—after dismissing the federal claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court concluded that allowing Thomas to amend his Bivens damages claims would be futile because he had repeatedly brought similar claims against defense counsel, a judge involved in his criminal proceedings, and the Federal Government. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend those claims.

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). It dismissed Thomas’s challenge to his conviction and sentence without prejudice to his bringing a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court also denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, meaning Thomas could not appeal without prepaying the required fees, because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.