Encarnacion v. Irby

Background

Samuel Encarnacion, who was incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility and litigated without a lawyer, brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that Michelle Foggie, the chief clerk of the Criminal Division of the Bronx County Supreme Court, and John Sampugnaro, identified as the motion clerk on September 13, 2018, interfered with his postconviction filings.

Encarnacion alleged that he mailed a motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 to vacate his criminal judgment on August 29, 2018. Certified-mail receipts showed delivery to the Bronx County Hall of Justice on September 13, 2018, but the motion was not processed or assigned a return date. Encarnacion claimed that Foggie and the motion clerk intercepted, confiscated, or conspired to prevent the filing of his motion.

Encarnacion later filed an Article 78 petition seeking to compel Foggie to file the motion. The state court eventually treated the motion as filed, allowed the government to respond, and denied it in its entirety on January 7, 2021. The state court also stated that the mail receipts did not establish that the Clerk’s Office received the motion or refused to file it, and called Encarnacion’s conspiracy allegation baseless.

Motion and Arguments

Foggie and Sampugnaro moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They argued that the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims in New York. They also argued that sovereign immunity protected them in their official capacities and that absolute quasi-judicial immunity protected them in their personal capacities. Encarnacion stated that he was suing them in their personal capacities, so the court did not address the official-capacity issue further.

Statute of Limitations

The court held that the claim accrued when Encarnacion knew or had reason to know of the alleged injury—namely, the alleged failure to file his August 2018 motion. The court found that his December 17, 2018 letter showed that he already knew the motion had not been filed and believed that this violated his access to the courts. Even assuming he remained uncertain until later, the court held that the February 5, 2019 state-court decision removed any doubt. The three-year limitations period therefore expired no later than February 5, 2022, seventeen days before Encarnacion filed this action. The court ruled that the complaint was time-barred.

Quasi-Judicial Immunity

The court also ruled that the defendants were protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity. This protection can apply to people who perform functions closely connected to the judicial process, including court clerks performing filing and docketing activities. The court concluded that the alleged failure to file the motion involved that type of court-related activity.

The court further found that Encarnacion did not sufficiently allege that the Clerk’s Office received the motion or departed from established court practices. It treated his allegations that the defendants intercepted, confiscated, and conspired to steal his mail as unsupported legal conclusions rather than sufficiently supported factual allegations. The court distinguished a case involving repeated, allegedly bad-faith refusals by clerks to accept filings.

The court added that, even if the defendants’ conduct were considered a ministerial rather than judicial task, they would still have qualified good-faith immunity because Encarnacion offered no credible, non-conclusory allegations of bad faith or malice.

Other Issue and Disposition

The defendants mentioned claim preclusion in their reply brief, but they had not raised it in their motion or a responsive pleading. The court therefore treated that argument as waived and did not decide whether the state court’s January 7, 2021 decision precluded Encarnacion’s federal claims.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and ordered the case closed. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice.