Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LYNCH v. MENIFEE

August 4, 2004.

KEVIN LYNCH, Plaintiff,
v.
FREDERICK MENIFEE, Warden, Otisville Federal Correctional Facility, & DELBERT G. SAUERS, (Former) Inmate Systems Manager, Otisville Federal Correctional Facility, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ANDREW PECK, Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Kevin Lynch brings this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), alleging that (1) defendants Frederick Menifee, Warden at the Otisville Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Otisville"), and Delbert G. Sauers, former Inmate Systems Manager at FCI Otisville, transferred Lynch to New York State custody to face a murder charge without a pre-transfer administrative hearing in violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD"), 18 U.S.C. App. 2, and Lynch's "constitutional rights to due process of law" (Dkt. No. 2: Compl. at 2-2c, ¶¶ 2-4); and (2) as a result of this unlawful transfer, Lynch was mistreated by New York State prison officials and suffered mental anguish (Compl. at 3c-3e). Lynch seeks monetary damages and dismissal of his federal sentence, claiming that upon his transfer to state custody, the federal authorities lost jurisdiction over him. (Compl. at 5; see generally Lynch Opp. to Defs. Motion to Dismiss.)

Defendants have moved to dismiss Lynch's complaint, arguing that: (1) Lynch is not entitled to relief under Bivens because his claim is predicated on a purported violation of the IAD, which does not constitute an infringement of a constitutional right and thus his claim is not cognizable under Bivens (Dkt. No. 14: Defs. Br. at 4-6); (2) Lynch was not entitled to a pre-transfer hearing under the IAD, the Constitution, or any other law (Defs. Br. at 6-8); (3) even assuming arguendo that Lynch could claim relief under Bivens and that defendants were required to provide a hearing prior to Lynch's transfer to New York State custody, such failure did not proximately cause Lynch any cognizable injury, since the state murder charges against Lynch were ultimately dismissed with prejudice (Defs. Br. at 8-9); and (4) Lynch's claim that defendants violated the IAD by failing to provide a pre-transfer hearing cannot form the basis for the habeas-type relief of dismissal of his federal sentence; such relief could only possibly extend to the state murder charges, which were dismissed (Defs. Br. at 9-10).

  The case was referred to me on May 17, 2004 (Dkt. No. 7), and the parties consented to disposition of this case by me as a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 16: § 636(c) Consent; see also Dkt. No. 10: 5/27/04 Hearing Tr. at 21-22.)

  For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice is GRANTED in its entirety. FACTS

  Plaintiff Kevin Lynch was arrested by United States Marshals and taken into custody in Prince Georges County, Maryland on December 10, 1992. (Dkt. No. 2: Compl. at 3; Compl. Ex. New York District Attorney's Office "Chronology" at 1.)*fn1 On December 23, the New York County District Attorney's Office indicted Lynch for second degree murder. (Compl. at 3; Chronology at 1.) On January 11, 1993, Lynch waived extradition and was taken to New York and arraigned on the murder charge on January 19. (Compl. at 3; Chronology at 1.) In February 1993, while in New York custody, Lynch was indicted on federal narcotics charges in Maryland (Compl. at 3; Chronology at 1.)

  Between March and September 1993, Lynch was engaged in plea negotiations with the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office and the New York County District Attorney's Office, but in order for the New York state sentence to run concurrently, federal sentencing guidelines required that Lynch first be sentenced on the federal charges, then brought back to New York to face the state murder charges. (Chronology at 1.)

  To accomplish this, on September 21, 1993, Lynch was released (to the U.S. Marshals) by New York County on $1.00 bail and taken back to Maryland by the Marshals. (Compl. at 3, 3b; Chronology at 1.) Nine days later, on September 30,*fn2 the New York District Attorney's Office revoked Lynch's $1.00 bail and filed a detainer*fn3 against Lynch. (Compl. at 3, 3b; Chronology at 1.)

  On June 10, 1994, Lynch was convicted after trial in federal court in Maryland of federal narcotics charges and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. (Compl. at 3, 3b; Chronology at 2.) On June 29, the District Attorney's Office (with the approval of the state court) served its IAD Form V ("Request for Temporary Custody") on the federal prison system in order to secure custody of Lynch to face the New York state murder charge. (Compl. at 3; Chronology at 2.) On August 6, 1994, the federal correctional institution ("FCI") in Springfield, Illinois, acknowledged receipt of the New York District Attorney's Form V and offered to provide temporary custody of Lynch upon submission of an IAD Form VI ("Evidence of Agent's Authority to Act for Receiving State"). (Compl. at 3; Chronology at 2.) On December 12, 1994, the District Attorney's Office received notification that Lynch had been transferred to FCI Lewisburg (Pennsylvania) and, on January 12, 1995, that New York's IAD Form V was on file at FCI Lewisburg.*fn4 (Compl. at 3; Chronology at 2.)

  Five and a half years later, on July 12, 2000, FCI Otisville notified the New York District Attorney's Office that Lynch had been transferred there and that FCI Otisville still had the 1994 IAD Form V on file but that the D.A.'s Office should file a new request if New York State still wished to obtain custody of Lynch. (Compl. at 3; Chronology at 2.) The District Attorney's Office filed a new IAD Form V for custody of Lynch on November 1, 2000. (Compl. at 3; Chronology a 2; Compl. Ex.: 11/1/00 IAD Form V.) FCI Otisville acknowledged receipt of the new Form V in a letter from defendant Delbert G. Sauers dated January 10, 2001. (Compl. at 3; Compl. Ex.: 1/10/01 FCI Letter to D.A.'s Office; Chronology at 3.) In that same letter, Sauers advised the D.A.'s Office that "[i]nmates who are temporarily transferred pursuant to the IADA [Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act] remain under the primary jurisdiction of federal authorities" and that "under Article V(e) of the IADA, [New York State was] required to return [Lynch] to [FCI Otisville] after prosecution on all pending charges." (Compl. Ex.: 1/10/01 FCI Letter to D.A.'s Office; see Dkt. No. 14: Defs. Br. at 3.)

  One week later, on January 18, 2001, Lynch challenged his transfer to New York by "caus[ing] to deliver a self-styled habeas corpus" petition to the New York Supreme Court, "with copies forwarded to the defendants." (Compl. at 2, 3; see Defs. Br. at 3.) FCI Otisville forwarded copies of Lynch's pro se state habeas corpus petition to the District Attorney's Office on January 23, 2001. (Compl. at 3; Chronology at 3; Defs. Br. at 3.)*fn5 Between January 23 and his transfer to New York on February 9, 2001, Lynch alleges that he spoke with the defendants "on numerous occasions . . . to discuss his rights to contest New York's authority to secure him." (Compl. at 3; see Defs. Br. at 3.) According to Lynch, defendant Warden Frederick Menifee "admitted that he did not `know' the legal procedures concerning an inmate's rights to challenge" a transfer. (Compl. at 2; see Defs. Br. at 3.) According to Lynch, defendant Sauers, however, told Lynch that "he could send [Lynch] to any jurisdiction that wanted [him] on an untried indictment or information . . . regardless of any rights [Lynch] `thought' he was entitled to." (Compl. at 2-2a, 3a.)

  Lynch ultimately was transferred involuntarily to New York State custody on February 9, 2001. (Compl. at 2a, 3a; Chronology at 3; Defs. Br. at 3.) Soon thereafter, Lynch moved to dismiss the state murder indictment on the ground that "the People failed to act in a timely manner . . . to obtain custody of [Lynch] from federal authorities." (Compl. Ex.: A.D.A. Hurley Aff. in Resp. to Lynch Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 3.) Specifically, Lynch claimed that "the People failed to accept temporary custody of [him] after the same was offered by federal authorities in 1994 and that this failure require[d] dismissal of the indictment pursuant to Article IV, Paragraph c of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers." (Compl. Ex.: A.D.A. Hurley Aff. ¶ 3.) The District Attorney's Office conceded that Lynch's claim "ha[d] merit" and therefore sought to adjourn the matter so that the D.A.'s Office could file a "Recommendation for Dismissal." (Compl. Ex.: A.D.A. Hurley Aff. ¶¶ 4, 5.) On June 8, 2001, the New York indictment against Lynch was dismissed with prejudice, and Lynch was returned to FCI Otisville one week later on June 15, 2001. (Compl at 2a, 3a; Compl. Ex.: IAD Form IX, "Prosecutor's Report on Disposition of Charges"; Defs. Br. at 3-4.)

  On or about July 17, 2001, Lynch brought this suit against defendants Menifee and Sauers pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971).*fn6 (Dkt. No. 2: Compl.) The matter was referred to me on May 17, 2004. (Dkt. No. 7.) Presently before the Court is defendants' ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.