Rivera v. McNamara

Background

Hector Rivera, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. Rivera alleged that, after he obtained a community-garden plot at the Adams Houses in August 2021, neighbors threatened him, his daughter, and his grandson, damaged his car, and took gardening supplies. He said that police and other officials did not adequately investigate his complaints.

Rivera was charged with attempted murder on November 2, 2022. His complaint provided limited details about the events leading to his arrest. He alleged that people surrounded him while displaying knives, that he threw stones, and that a weapon was allegedly fired into the air. He also alleged that his criminal defense attorneys failed to raise issues concerning his complaints to law enforcement and possible defenses. He sought declaratory relief, an order requiring action, and money damages. The court stated that his criminal proceedings appeared to be ongoing.

Screening of the civil-rights claims

Because Rivera had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented filings are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court granted Rivera leave to amend claims against the police commissioner and deputy police commissioner because he did not allege facts showing their direct and personal involvement in the events. It also granted leave to amend claims against the City of New York because Rivera did not allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his rights.

The court dismissed the claims against the “City Housing Police” because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued as a separate entity. It found that Rivera had not stated a federal civil-rights claim against attorneys Connor McNamara, Scott Midgen, and Robert Tsigler because the complaint did not allege that they acted under state authority. The court also dismissed the claims against District Attorney Darcel Clark because the allegations appeared to concern actions within her official duties and connected to the criminal trial, for which prosecutors have immunity from damages claims.

The court dismissed Rivera’s claims based on an alleged failure by government officials to investigate his complaints because the Constitution generally does not give individuals an affirmative right to a government investigation. The court treated Rivera’s allegations about his arrest as a possible false-arrest claim but found too few facts to determine that the arrest lacked probable cause or was otherwise unreasonable or not made in good faith. It granted Rivera leave to amend that claim.

Detention-related claims

The court construed the portion of Rivera’s filing challenging his ongoing criminal proceedings as a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law that can sometimes provide a way for a state pretrial detainee to challenge allegedly unlawful custody. The court explained that federal courts generally should not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings unless special circumstances exist, such as a right that could not be protected after trial or a claim collateral to the criminal case.

The court said Rivera’s assertion that the state court had violated his right to fair criminal proceedings could arguably present circumstances allowing review before the criminal case ended. But Rivera did not allege that he had exhausted available state-court remedies. The court therefore denied the petition without prejudice, with leave to replead if Rivera could provide facts showing exhaustion.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Rivera 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must identify the relevant defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the relief sought. The court stated that Rivera could include facts supporting detention-related relief if he could show that he had exhausted state-court remedies.

The court directed Rivera to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit using the existing docket number. No summons would issue at that time. If Rivera did not comply within the deadline and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.