Hussey v. Honorable Ellen Biben

Background

Yessuh Suhyes Hussey, who was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island when the order was issued, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the New York City Department of Correction held him from August 4, 2021, through March 3, 2023, even though he had completed a 364-day sentence on August 4, 2022. He sought money damages from Ellen Biben, Dana Levin, Kelley Duffy, Christopher Disanto, Michael Dimggio, and Louis A. Molina.

Hussey originally filed the case in the Eastern District of New York, which transferred it to the Southern District of New York. The court had granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because Hussey was a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer and suing governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Screening standards

The court explained that it must dismiss a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed by self-represented litigants generously, Rule 8 still requires enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

To state a claim under Section 1983, Hussey had to allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state law.

Claims against Judge Biben

The court dismissed the claims against Judge Biben. Judges are absolutely immune from damages suits for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities, even when a plaintiff alleges bad faith or malice. The court understood Hussey to be alleging that Judge Biben’s order in his criminal case led to his continued custody. Because Hussey did not allege facts showing that Biben acted outside her judicial role or without jurisdiction, the court concluded that judicial immunity applied. It dismissed these claims as seeking money from an immune defendant and, consequently, as frivolous under the prisoner-fee statute.

Claims based on lack of personal involvement

The court dismissed the claims against Levin, Duffy, Disanto, Dimggio, and Molina because Hussey did not allege facts showing how any of them was personally involved in the alleged prolonged detention. A government official cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely because that official supervises someone who allegedly violated a person’s rights. The court noted that it was unclear whether Levin, Duffy, and Disanto were court employees; if they were, judicial immunity might also apply to some of their conduct.

The court treated the claim against Molina in his official capacity as a claim against New York City. It dismissed that claim because Hussey did not allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Prolonged-detention claim

The court treated Hussey’s allegation that he was held beyond his release date as an attempted Eighth Amendment claim. Such a claim requires facts showing a sufficiently serious deprivation and that an official acted with a state of mind equivalent to criminal recklessness, rather than ordinary carelessness. The court recognized that detention beyond a mandatory release date can constitute a constitutional harm.

The court nevertheless found that Hussey’s allegations were insufficient. He did not identify a non-immune defendant who decided not to release him, state whether he told anyone that he should have been released, or describe how officials responded. The court therefore concluded that he had not alleged facts showing that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference. The court did not finally dismiss this claim at that point; instead, it granted leave to amend it with more facts.

State-law claims and leave to amend

Hussey also referred to a provision called “Civil Procedure Code 52.3,” but the court said it was unclear what state or federal provision he meant. Because the court was allowing amendment of the federal claims, it reserved its decision on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

The court granted Hussey 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the people responsible for the continued detention, explain what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested. It will replace rather than supplement the existing complaint. If Hussey failed to comply within the allotted time without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order. No summons would issue at that time. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.