Debellis v. Andrew Nash and James Flynn
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-08730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Debellis v. Nash, Judge Furman clarified which claims were dismissed with or without prejudice and denied reconsideration of earlier rulings.
Anthony F. Debellis, the defendants, and the City of New York. The order clarifies that some of Debellis’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, while his September 2018 arrest claims were dismissed without prejudice, and it addresses the settlement payment for the remaining unlawful-search claim.
What happened
In Anthony F. Debellis v. 48th Precinct Detective Nash et al., the court responded to Debellis’s request for clarification about claims dismissed earlier in the case. The court had previously ordered New York City to pay $5,000 to settle the remaining unlawful-search claim involving Sergeant Flynn and Detective Nash.
The court explained that claims dismissed for failure to state a claim, as well as claims against Assistant District Attorney Koves and criminal defense attorney Sanchez, were dismissed with prejudice. Claims arising from the September 2018 arrest were dismissed without prejudice under the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, meaning Debellis may be able to refile them if his prior conviction was overturned, subject to any filing deadline.
Judge Furman denied any request to reconsider earlier rulings because it was untimely and lacked merit. The court directed that the settlement proceed, confirmed the different dismissal terms, and denied fee-free appeal status because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Debellis v. Andrew Nash and James Flynn · No. 1:19-cv-08730
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 7, 2024
Background
The court issued this memorandum opinion and order after receiving a letter from Plaintiff Anthony F. Debellis asking whether previously dismissed claims had been dismissed with or without prejudice. The clarification request followed the court’s February 23, 2024 order, which granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to enforce a settlement and directed the City of New York to pay Debellis $5,000 in full satisfaction of the unlawful-search claim concerning Sergeant Flynn and Detective Nash. The court stated that this was the only remaining claim at that time and that all other claims had already been dismissed.
Dismissal terms
The court explained that the claims dismissed in its March 28, 2022 opinion and order were dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and without permission to amend. The court therefore confirmed that those claims were dismissed with prejudice. It also confirmed that Debellis’s claims against Assistant District Attorney Koves and criminal defense attorney Sanchez were dismissed with prejudice because Koves had prosecutorial immunity and Sanchez was not a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for claims against state actors.
By contrast, the court stated that claims arising from Debellis’s September 2018 arrest had been explicitly dismissed without prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey. The court said that, if Debellis’s prior conviction had since been overturned, he might be able to refile those claims, subject to any applicable statute of limitations.
Ruling
To the extent Debellis’s letter sought reconsideration of earlier rulings, Judge Jesse M. Furman denied that request as untimely and on the merits. The court ordered that the settlement proceed under the February 23 order, confirmed that the September 2018 arrest claims were dismissed without prejudice, and confirmed that all other claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Debellis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.