Herbert v. SanFeliz

Background

Jeremiah Folsom Herbert, representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleged false arrest and excessive force arising from his April 4, 2022 arrest. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and had directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants, but the initial service attempts were unsuccessful.

The court later directed the New York State Office of the Attorney General to obtain the defendants’ badge numbers and addresses. The Office provided that information and also argued that Herbert’s false-arrest claim should be dismissed. Herbert had been indicted on controlled-substance possession charges connected to the arrest and was found guilty on all counts at trial on December 14, 2022.

False-Arrest Claim

The court reviewed the complaint and state-court records as part of its authority to screen a complaint filed without a filing fee. It held that a person convicted of the crime for which he was arrested generally cannot maintain a § 1983 false-arrest claim because the conviction establishes probable cause, making the confinement legally justified. The court found that neither Herbert’s complaint nor his response suggested that his conviction was invalid or fraudulently obtained.

The court therefore dismissed the false-arrest claim without prejudice. It stated that Herbert could replead the claim if he successfully reversed or otherwise invalidated his conviction.

Excessive-Force Claim

The court construed the complaint as also alleging excessive force. Herbert alleged that the defendants used unnecessary force and caused him physical harm during the arrest. Although the court described the allegations as weak and the evidence as extremely thin, it held that the excessive-force claim was entitled to a response and survived the court’s screening.

Service of Process

The defendants had not yet been served. Because the case was proceeding on the excessive-force claim, the court requested that the defendants notify it whether they would waive service of summons. The defendants were given 30 days from the date of the order to respond. The court stated that, if they declined to waive service, it would again direct the U.S. Marshals Service to assist Herbert with service.

Disposition

The false-arrest claim was dismissed without prejudice. The excessive-force claim survived. The defendants were requested to notify the court within 30 days whether they would waive service of process.