Townsend v. New York
| Decision Date | 05 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | 14-CV-6079 (CBA) (LB) |
| Parties | CORY TOWNSEND, Plaintiff, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CITY OF NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, VIRGIL B. CUMBERBATCH, RICHARD A. IZZO, DANNY K. CHUN, MICHAEL CHESSA, MIJIN CHUNG KANG, CHRISTINA GIARDINO, BETTY J. WILLIAMS, CRAIG LEE NEWMAN, JOSEPH E. GUBBAY, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, ROBERT FOSTER, GLENN ERIC SINGER, JOSEPH PONTE, MARY ELIZABETH MONAHAN, ERIC N. VITALIANO, COMPLAINER DOE(s), Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
On October 16, 2014, plaintiff, Cory Townsend, appearing pro se, filed this action against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242, 1512. Townsend alleges violations of various constitutional rights, as well as claims sounding in "File tampering, False Imprisonment [and] Libel/Defamation." (Complaint ("Compl.") ¶ 2.) He seeks damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. ¶ 4.) The Court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), for purposes of this Order only and dismisses Townsend's complaint, but grants him leave to re-plead certain of his claims.
Townsend's core contention turns on the alleged illegitimacy of his state court criminal prosecution. 2 Specifically, he contends that the state court lacks jurisdiction over him, that the court forced public defenders on him, that those public defenders "did not defend plaintiff," and that the court held hearings in his absence. (Id.) Based on the court documents appended to his complaint, Townsend appears to have been charged with possession of heroin in Kings County Supreme Court. (Id. Exhs. A at 2-3, B at 2.) Townsend also puts forth other claims related to his prosecution. First, he challenges a psychiatric examination ordered by the state court. (Id. Exh. Al ¶¶ 34-35.) He also claims that he was denied assistance of counsel because the court did not permit Lidya Maria Radin, a non-attorney, to represent him at a hearing on June 10, 2014. (Id. Exhs. Al ¶ 35, T.) He alleges that a member of the New York State Courts Department of Public Safety, Robert Foster, defamed him by hanging a "wanted poster" in Kings County Supreme Court. (Id. Exhs. Al ¶ 30.) The poster: (1) declares Townsend a "person of interest," (2) describes his efforts as a "Sovereign Citizen" to personally serve purported legal documents on people involved in his prosecution, and (3) asks that anybody who sees him at the courthouse pay "special attention" to him, document his presence, and notify courthouse public safety officials. (Id. Exh. P.) Townsend also claims that several documents went missing from his case file. (Id. Exh. Al ¶¶ 32.) Lastly, he appears to claim that Judge Eric N. Vitaliano, of this District, wrongfully denied Townsend's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Id. Exh. Al ¶¶ 36-38.) Judge Vitalianodismissed the petition without prejudice after Townsend failed to correct deficiencies in the filing of his petition. (Id. Exh. V.)
Townsend seeks money damages, an injunction preventing defendants from "interfering in any way with plaintiffs [sic] lawful right to travel, negotiate and enter into contracts," and a declaratory judgment that, in effect, the state court legal process was illegitimate. (Id. ¶ 4.)
A district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted if it does not plead enough facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint plausibly states a claim if the facts alleged "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iabal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although "'detailed factual allegations'" are not required, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, a complaint does not state a claim "if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
A court must construe a pro se litigant's pleadings liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments they fairly suggest. Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Liberal construction is especially important when a pro se litigant's pleadings allege civil rights violations. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). Lastly, a pro se complaint should not be dismissed without granting a pro se plaintiff leave to amend "at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated." Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Townsend's claims against the State of New York, the People of the State of New York, the Kings County District Attorney's Office, and the Criminal and Supreme Courts of the City of New York. Accordingly, it must dismiss the claims against these entities. The Eleventh Amendment provides that "[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. CONST. AMEND. XI. "It has long been settled that the reference to actions 'against one of the United States'" in the Eleventh Amendment "encompasses not only actions in which a State is actually named as the defendant, but also certain actions against state agents and state instrumentalities." Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997). Although the text of the Eleventh Amendment speaks only to "Citizens of another State," the Supreme Court has long held that it also cover suits by citizens of the state named as defendant. Nat'l Foods, Inc. v. Rubin, 936 F.2d 656, 659 n.2 (2d Cir. 1991) (citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 (1890)).
Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity by: "(1) unequivocally expressing its intent to do so, and (2) acting pursuant to a valid exercise of power." Kozaczek v. N.Y. Higher Educ.Servs. Corp., 503 F. App'x 60, 61 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55 (1996)). However, "it is well established that Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Sargent v. Emons, 582 F. App'x 51, 52 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979)). It is equally "well[] established that New York has not consented to § 1983 suits in federal court." Mamot v. Bd. of Regents, 367 F. App'x 191, 192 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm'n, 557 F.2d 35, 38-40 (2d Cir. 1977)). With respect to injunctive relief, although the doctrine in Ex parte Young permits "suits against state officers in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief to prevent a continuing violation of federal law," Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 287 (2d Cir. 2003), that doctrine "has no application in suits against the States and their agencies, which are barred regardless of the relief sought," Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993).
Townsend's claims are therefore dismissed as against the State of New York, the People of the State of New York, the Kings County District Attorney's Office, and the Criminal and Supreme Courts of the City of New York. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); see also Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009) (); Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 535-36 (2d Cir. 1993) ().
Townsend's complaint must also be dismissed as against the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"). The New York City Charter requires that suit "be brought in the name ofthe City of New York and not in that of any agency." N. Y.C. Charter § 396; see also Ximines v. George Wingate High Sch., 516 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (). The NYPD is just such a city department. Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007) (). Therefore, plaintiff's claims against the NYPD are dismissed for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The Court also dismisses Townsend's claims against Curtis Farber, Alexander Jeong, Danny Chun, Betty J. Williams, Joseph E. Gubbay, and Eric N. Vitaliano. All are judges employed by the state courts, except Judge Vitaliano, who is a United States District Judge in this District.3 Judges "generally have absolute immunity" from suit for judicial acts performed in their judicial capacities. Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991)). This absolute "judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice," nor can a judge "be deprived of immunity because the action h...
To continue reading
Request your trial