Complaint against asst. D.A. dismissed

Should the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed in a case where he alleged that an assistant district attorney violated his constitutional rights by withholding a police report?

This was the central question that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York addressed in Robert Hall, 95-B-2093 v. Erie County Assistant District Attorney John Luzier.

Based on the plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and his failure to file the complaint within the three-year statutory time period, U.S. District Court Judge Charles J. Siragusa dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Background

The plaintiff, Robert Hall, claimed that on February 28, 1995, the defendant, John Luzier, Erie County Assistant District Attorney, withheld a police report that contained information regarding the place of the plaintiff's arrest.

The plaintiff did not discover this information until June 6, 2001, when he received a copy of the deposition of Officer Thomas Keane.

Asserting that the defendant's failure to provide the report adversely affected the suppression hearing conducted in the criminal matter, the plaintiff contended that the report would have supported his version of events.

Since October 20, 1995, the plaintiff has been serving out an Erie County sentence as an inmate of the Greenhaven Correctional Facility.

Plaintiff's Action

On June 27, 2002 the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought the instant action to federal court.

Seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the plaintiff requested permission to proceed as a poor person (in forma pauperis) and alleged that the defendant violated his constitutional rights by the withholding of the police report.

The plaintiff sought monetary damages.

28 U.S.C. 1915

Finding that the plaintiff met the statutory requirements pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), Judge Siragusa granted the plaintiff's request to proceed as a poor person.

The next issue that the court addressed was whether the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed.

Judge Siragusa referred to 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28 U.S.C. which states that the court shall dismiss a case in which in forma pauperis status has been granted if the court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

In addition, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) found that dismissal is not appropriate "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."

Applying those standards to the instant case, Judge Siragusa in his decision for the court concluded that the "plaintiff's claims must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915(A)(b) because they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."

Complaint Is Time-Barred

Judge Siragusa also found that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file his complaint within the required statutory time period.

According to New York's CPLR 214(2), the statute of limitations in 1983 actions in New York State is a three-year period. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 251 (1989); Jewell v. County of Nassau, 917 F2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1990).

Moreover, federal courts are required to borrow New York's rules for tolling the statute of limitations unless the rules are inconsistent with federal law. Board of Regents of University of State of New York v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 487-491 (1980).

The facts of the case show that the plaintiff filed his complaint on June 27, 2002, in relation to incidents that occurred February 28, 1995.

Consequently, Judge Siragusa stated that "It is apparent that the three-year time period during which plaintiff could properly bring his claims expired well before plaintiff filed this action...Plaintiff's complaint is therefore time-barred and must be dismissed."

Absolute Immunity

In the court's additional analysis, Judge Siragusa noted that "to the extent that plaintiff is claiming that this new information was previously unavailable and that the discovery of the information impacts the statute of limitations, the action is still subject to dismissal."

Specifically, the court found that in regards to 1983 suits, prosecutors performing traditional prosecutorial activities are entitled to absolute immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-28 (1976).

"The absolute immunity accorded to government prosecutors encompasses not only their conduct of trials but all of their activities that can fairly be characterized as closely associated with the conduct of litigation or potential litigation, including presentation of evidence to a grand jury to initiate a prosecution..., activities in deciding not to do so..., and conduct of plea bargaining negotiations...."Barrett v. U.S., 798 F2d 565, 571- 572 (2d Cir. 1986) (citing Lee v. Willins, 617 F2d 320 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 861 (1980); Dacey v. Dorsey, 568 F2d 275, 278 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 906 (1978); Taylor v. Kavanagh, 640 F2d 450 (2d Cir. 1981)).