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.

Horton v. Williams

August 24, 2010

CHRISTOPHER HORTON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD WILLIAMS, D.A.; AND BERNARD KELLER, INVESTIGATOR, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court in this civil rights action filed by Christopher Horton ("Plaintiff") is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and/or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction filed by Donald Williams ("Defendant Williams") and a motion for summary judgment filed by Bernard Keller ("Defendant Keller"). (Dkt. Nos. 64, 68.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Williams's motion is granted, and Defendant Keller's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Claims

Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that, between approximately September 5, 2006, and October 31, 2006, in Ulster County, New York, Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the United States Constitution by falsely imprisoning him, defaming him, and depriving him of due process. (See generally Dkt. No. 2 [Plf.'s Compl.].) Familiarity with the factual allegations supporting these claims in Plaintiff's Complaint is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties. (Id.)

B. Undisputed Material Facts

The following is a general summary of material facts that are undisputed by the parties.(Compare Dkt. No. 64, Attach. 4 [Def. Williams's Memo. of Law] with Dkt. No. 68 [Plf.'s Response Memo. of Law], and Dkt No. 70 [Def. Keller's Rule 7.1 Statement] with Dkt. No. 71 [Plf.'s Rule 7.1 Response].)*fn1

On September 5, 2006, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with two counts of rape in the third degree, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and two counts of unlawfully dealing with a child. Plaintiff was remanded without bail by the Honorable Terry B. Elia. On September 7, 2006, a preliminary hearing was held, but was adjourned until September 13, 2006. Plaintiff's criminal rape charges were subsequently dismissed. On October 24, 2006, Plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury on charges of criminal sale of marijuana and unlawfully dealing with a child, for which Plaintiff was arraigned on October 31, 2006. Plaintiff remained in jail until January 31, 2007, at which time he pleaded guilty to the charges of unlawfully dealing with a child. He was sentenced to time served. Upon his release, Plaintiff lost his job, which he had held for seven years, and was asked to leave nursing school.

Familiarity with the remaining undisputed material facts of this action, as well as the disputed material facts, as set forth in the parties' Rule 7.1 Statements and Rule 7.1 Responses, is assumed in this Decision and Order, which (again) is intended primarily for review by the parties.

C. Defendants' Motions

1. Defendant Williams's Motion to Dismiss

Generally, in support of his motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and/or for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), Defendant Williams argues as follows: (1) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Williams are barred by doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, because each of those claims relate to Defendant Williams' actions as District Attorney; (2) in the alternative, to the extent that Plaintiff's claims are asserted against Defendant Williams in his official capacity, those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment doctrine of sovereign immunity; (3) in the alternative, each of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Williams should be dismissed because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which, inter alia, effectively precludes federal district courts from entertaining collateral attacks on the validity underlying state court criminal proceedings; and (4) in the alternative, Plaintiff's claims for defamation and false imprisonment are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (See generally Dkt. No. 64, Attach. 4 [Def. Williams's Memo. of Law].)

In response to Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not deprive the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. (See generally Dkt. ...


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.