Esseily v. Hochul
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-02932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Esseily v. Hochul, Judge Schofield dismissed Ali Esseily’s complaint seeking police records and criminal prosecutions.
Ali Esseily’s complaint was dismissed. The defendants were not required to provide the requested records or initiate criminal prosecutions.
What happened
In Esseily v. Hochul, Ali Esseily sued New York officials and an unknown judge. His complaint appeared to seek records about a 1987 robbery, an order requiring officials to follow the law, and prosecution of people involved in the robbery. He filed the case without a lawyer and paid the filing fee.
The court ruled that the federal public-records law applies only to federal agencies, and Esseily did not say that he requested records from one. The court also said it could not decide a claim under New York’s public-records law and that a private person cannot force prosecutors or a court to begin a criminal case.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed the complaint and declined to allow an amended complaint because the problems could not be fixed by amendment. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal; the Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Esseily v. Hochul · No. 1:24-cv-02932
- Lorna Schofield
- May 1, 2024
Background
Ali Esseily filed the complaint against New York Governor Kathy Hochul, New York Attorney General Letitia James, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and an “Unknown Judge.” He proceeded without a lawyer and paid the filing fee.
The complaint concerned a 1987 store robbery in Manhattan. Attachments included a New York Police Department form denying a request for a “complete full report” without a subpoena, a police report identifying Esseily as the complainant, and part of another document stating that he had been struck in the eye with an unknown object. The complaint appeared to seek information about the investigation and prosecution of the robbery, as well as an injunction requiring the defendants to comply with the law.
The court noted that Esseily had filed an earlier lawsuit involving similar allegations about the government’s failure to prosecute crime. In that prior related proceeding, the court dismissed the claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Reasons for Dismissal
The court dismissed the claims seeking police records under the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. FOIA applies only to federal agencies, not state or city agencies. Because the complaint did not allege that Esseily requested records from a federal agency, it did not state a FOIA claim.
The court also stated that it lacked authority to grant relief under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. A person seeking relief under that state law must pursue the procedures provided by New York law, including an administrative appeal or a proceeding in state court.
The court separately dismissed the claims based on an alleged failure to prosecute. Decisions about whether to bring criminal charges belong to prosecutors. Neither Esseily nor the court could direct prosecutors to begin a criminal proceeding against a person or entity.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court declined to do so here because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also noted that this was the second lawsuit that, in substance, reasserted previously dismissed claims. It warned that further duplicative litigation could lead to an order requiring Esseily to obtain permission before filing new complaints, whether or not he paid filing fees or requested permission to proceed without paying them.
The court dismissed the Complaint. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.