Coello v. DiLeo

• Decision Date: 08 August 2022
• Docket Number: s. 21-2112 & 21-2366
• Citation: 43 F.4th 346
• Parties: Yasmine COELLO, Appellant v. Louis M.J. DILEO; Richard J. Gerbounka, Mayor; City of Linden; Nicholas P. Scutari ; Kathleen Estabrooks; Kathleen Estabrooks, P.C.; John Doe(s) 1-10; ABC Entities 1-10
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

43 F.4th 346

Yasmine COELLO, Appellant

v.Louis M.J. DILEO; Richard J. Gerbounka, Mayor; City of Linden; Nicholas P. Scutari ; Kathleen Estabrooks; Kathleen Estabrooks, P.C.; John Doe(s) 1-10; ABC Entities 1-10

Nos. 21-2112 & 21-2366

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued on April 11, 2022

Opinion filed August 8, 2022

Joshua F. McMahon, Suite 200, 350 Springfield Avenue, Summit, NJ 07901, Kristen J. Piper, Brian D. Singleton (Argued), Singleton, 14 Walsh Drive, Suite 304, Parsippany, NJ 07054, Counsel for Appellant

Robert F. Varady (Argued), LaCorte Bundy Varady & Kinsella, 989 Bonnel Court, Union, NJ 07083, Counsel for Appellees Louis M.J. DiLeo, Richard J. Gerbounka, City of Linden, and Nicholas P. Scutari

Before: AMBRO, SCIRICA, and TRAXLER^* , Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

AMBRO, Circuit Judge Yasmine Coello, convicted of harassment in 2007, succeeded over a decade later in having that conviction vacated. Only then did she file this civil rights action to recover for various abuses suffered during her criminal proceedings. The District Court dismissed most of her claims, concluding that Coello waited too long to bring them.

In this appeal we decide when Coello's filing clock began to run. The District Court held that it started at the time of her criminal trial and sentencing, when Coello first had reason to know of her alleged injuries. If so, her over-ten-year delay in bringing suit bars this action. According to Coello, however, that holding ignores the special timeliness rules governing her precise claims. Relying on Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), she argues that her claims all imply the invalidity of her criminal prosecution, such that she could not file suit until her conviction was vacated. If she is right, then her lawsuit was timely. Because we agree with Coello that Heck controls, we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background

In January 2007, Shirley Messina filed a private citizen complaint in a Linden, New Jersey municipal court. It accused Coello—who was at the time dating Messina's former boyfriend, David Figueroa, with whom Messina had a child—of harassment. Coello appeared in court, pled not guilty, and the charge was dismissed. That should have ended the story.

But, for reasons still unknown to her, it didn't. In February 2007, private attorney Kathleen Estabrooks submitted an affidavit to Municipal Judge Louis DiLeo requesting that she be appointed to prosecute Messina's complaint against Coello. Estabrooks submitted her affidavit under the New Jersey Court Rules, which permit courts to appoint a "private prosecutor to represent the State in cases involving cross-complaints." N.J. Ct. R. 7:8-7(b). But this prosecution did not involve a cross-complaint. Estabrooks's application was, moreover, incomplete: though she was required to state whether the municipal prosecutor had elected not to conduct the prosecution, she failed to do so.

The affidavit also required Estabrooks to certify whether there were any "facts that could reasonably affect [her] impartiality ... and the fairness of the proceedings or otherwise create an appearance of impropriety." Appx. 81. She indicated there were none. Estabrooks did not disclose that, at the time she submitted her affidavit and throughout Coello's criminal proceedings, she was also representing Messina in custody and other civil actions against Coello's boyfriend, Figueroa—circumstances that could quite clearly bear on Estabrooks's ability to prosecute Coello's case impartially.

Without recording any findings as to the need for a private prosecutor or the suitability of Estabrooks for the role, Judge DiLeo approved her to serve as acting prosecutor. They proceeded to a bench trial in March 2007. Irregularities continued to pile up: at Estabrooks's request, Judge DiLeo allegedly had Coello removed from the courtroom while prosecution witnesses testified. He then cross-examined Coello when she took the stand in her own defense. Ultimately, he found her guilty on the harassment charge and sentenced her to 30 days in jail but suspended that sentence on the condition that she attend 26 weeks of anger-management counseling.

A post-trial hearing was held early the next year, in January 2008. At the hearing, Judge DiLeo noted that he had recently received a letter from Estabrooks stating:

My client, Ms. Messina, has been forced to file another complaint against Ms. Coello for assault. Please see attached photo. The assault took place in the Township of Clark. Please advise if Ms. Coello completed the anger management course of twenty-six weeks as sentenced by Your Honor.

Appx. 33 ¶ 38. Coello attended the hearing without counsel. Estabrooks also attended but entered her appearance as private counsel for Messina. No municipal prosecutor was present; instead, Judge DiLeo allegedly assumed that role without inquiring into Coello's lack of representation.

Coello explained that she had a few weeks of anger management remaining but was having trouble scheduling it due to a new job. A pastor from the Abundant Life Worship Center—where Coello was completing her counseling—was there to vouch for her substantial compliance with the program. Estabrooks nevertheless urged DiLeo to send Coello to jail, and he agreed, reinstating her 30-day jail term. He did not address any aggravating or mitigating factors, such as the protestations of the pastor or the needs of Coello's minor children. Instead, she was immediately incarcerated.

While in jail, Coello hired an attorney who moved for reconsideration. DiLeo did not schedule argument on the motion until January 30, 2008, 14 days into Coello's jail sentence. Although it is unclear whether that argument ever took place, Coello was released from jail on February 3, 2008, after having been incarcerated for 18 days.

Nearly nine years later, in November 2016, Coello filed a counseled application for post-conviction relief in New Jersey state court. She asked that her harassment conviction be vacated, arguing that the underlying proceedings were infected by a host of legal errors. The State (wisely) did not oppose Coello's application. It was by that time already familiar with allegations of judicial misconduct lodged against Judge DiLeo, such as those discussed by our Court in Kirkland v. DiLeo , 581 F. App'x 111 (3d Cir. 2014). There we affirmed a district court's denial of judicial immunity for DiLeo, where he was alleged to have tried two criminal defendants without allowing them defense counsel and without a municipal prosecutor present. See id. at 112–16.

With those proceedings in mind, the prosecutor in Coello's post-conviction proceedings noted on the record:

Judge, I just want to assure the Court that this is—this entire issue is something that I really have considered very carefully.... I reviewed the facts of the case and, yes[,] my own experience and knowledge of this particular judge and the truly extraordinary lengths to which the judicial system has gone to excoriate [DiLeo] for what happened. And ... I remember reading the Third Circuit opinion [in Kirkland ] and was astonished that they went so far as to pierce his judicial immunity.

I feel that the State is completely ill-equipped and we would not be serving the interest of justice by opposing [Coello's] application.... [I]n this particular case there is enough that is indisputable with respect to how [Estabrooks's private-prosecutor] application was incomplete and what happened to this young lady. It's just too much. The stench is too great. The interest of justice will not be served by seeing a conviction made ....

Appx. 38–39 ¶ 64. With no objection from the State, the court granted Coello's application for post-conviction relief and vacated her conviction on February 26, 2018.

A little under two years later, on February 18, 2020, Coello filed this federal civil rights action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. She named multiple defendants: Estabrooks and her law firm (collectively, the "Estabrooks Defendants"), along with Judge DiLeo, Linden's former mayor Richard J. Gerbounka, its former municipal prosecutor Nicholas P. Scutari, and the City of Linden itself (collectively, the "Linden Defendants").

Coello's complaint alleged eight federal and state claims against the Linden Defendants stemming from the 2007 trial and 2008 post-trial hearing. Three of the federal claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : a Sixth Amendment claim alleging that certain Linden Defendants violated Coello's rights to counsel, to confront witnesses, and to a fair trial by conducting proceedings without her counsel present, excluding her from the courtroom during adverse witness testimony, and illegally transferring prosecutorial duties to Estabrooks (Count I); a Fourteenth Amendment claim alleging that certain Linden Defendants violated Coello's due process rights by, among other things, imposing a jail sentence without giving her the right to be heard or affording her legal counsel (Count III); and a claim alleging that Gerbounka and the City of Linden were liable for their deliberate indifference to this alleged misconduct (Count VIII). Coello asserted one federal claim for conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, alleging that certain Linden Defendants acted in concert to file and pursue criminal proceedings without probable cause and deny her constitutional rights (Count VI). And she brought four state-law claims, three of which mirrored her federal claims: Count II (violation of right to counsel, to confront witnesses, and to a fair trial, N.J. Const. art. I, § 10); Count IV (violation of due process rights, N.J. Const. art. I, § 1); and Count VII (civil conspiracy). Count V asserted a violation of the New Jersey Constitution's cruel and unusual punishment prohibition, N.J. Const. art. I, § 12, arising from Judge DiLeo's imposition of a 30-day jail sentence.

The...