Hickman v. New York County Defender Services

Background

Quandell Hickman, who was incarcerated at the Eric M. Taylor Center and proceeded without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He primarily challenged the conduct of the New York County Defender Services, which represented him in his criminal proceedings. He alleged that the organization and associated attorneys and staff withheld evidence, pressured him to accept or admit things, mishandled motions and jury matters, and paid jurors. He sought one billion dollars, criminal arrests and prosecutions, and the disbarment or shutdown of the organization and its personnel.

The court had previously allowed Hickman to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court was required to screen his complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant.

Section 1983 claims against the defender service and its employees

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action under color of state law. The court explained that private parties generally are not liable under § 1983. Representing a person in state criminal proceedings does not ordinarily make a privately retained, appointed, or public-defense lawyer a state actor.

The court found that the New York County Defender Services and its employees were private parties, and Hickman did not allege that they worked for a state or other government body. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim.

Claims against the City of New York

Although Hickman listed the City of New York in the complaint’s caption, he did not mention the City in the body of the complaint or allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against the City for failure to state a claim.

Requests for arrests and prosecutions

The court held that a private person cannot initiate the arrest and prosecution of another individual. Decisions about whether to bring criminal charges belong to prosecutors, and the court cannot direct prosecutors to bring those charges. The court dismissed Hickman’s requests to have the defendants arrested and prosecuted for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Hickman may have intended to assert.

The court also declined to give Hickman permission to amend the complaint. It concluded that the defects in claims against his defense counsel could not be cured by amendment. The court noted that concerns about defense counsel’s handling of the state criminal proceedings could be raised in those proceedings, but that a civil action for damages during the proceedings was not the appropriate vehicle for those concerns.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.