United States District Court, W.D. New York
MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Patrick Michael Mitchell, has filed this pro se action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket No. 1) and has requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 3). Plaintiff claims that on July 17, 2012, defendants, Robert Siersma and Samuel Soprano, Monroe County District Attorney's Office Investigators, violated his rights when they entered his home in Yates County without a warrant and arrested him. He also claims that defendant Sandra Doorley, Monroe County District Attorney, failed to train Siersma and Soprano, and that Eric Hurd, Assistant District Attorney ("ADA"), failed to provide discovery material to plaintiff's attorney that showed that Siersma falsified the arrest report by noting that plaintiff was arrested in Rochester. Plaintiff alleges that he was found not guilty following a jury trial. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's request to proceed as a poor person is granted, some of his claims are dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, and the summons and complaint will be served upon Siersma and Soprano.
Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel (Docket Nos. 2 and 4) are denied at this time as premature because a more fully developed record will be necessary before the Court can determine whether plaintiff's chances of success warrant the appointment of counsel. Therefore, plaintiff's motions are denied without prejudice to its renewal at such time as the existence of a potentially meritorious claim may be demonstrated. See Hendricks v. Coughlin , 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997) (when determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court must first look to the "likelihood of merit" of the underlying dispute).
Additionally, because this case was mistakenly assigned to a Magistrate Judge in the Buffalo Division and should have been assigned to a District Judge in the Rochester Division, the Clerk of the Court is directed to re-assign this case to a District Judge in Rochester.
Because plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and filed an Authorization with respect to this action, plaintiff is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28 U.S.C. requires the Court to conduct an initial screening of this complaint. In evaluating the complaint, the Court must accept as true all of the factual allegations and must draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. See Larkin v. Savage , 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam); King v. Simpson , 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1999). While "a court is obliged to construe [ pro se ] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations, " McEachin v. McGuinnis , 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), even pleadings submitted pro se must meet the notice requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wynder v. McMahon , 360 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2004). "Specific facts are not necessary, " and the plaintiff "need only give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Based on its evaluation of the complaint, the Court finds that some of plaintiff's claims must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A. Claims Against Monroe County, Monroe County District Attorney Doorely and Assistant District Attorney Hurd
Plaintiff alleges that Doorley, Monroe County District Attorney, is liable for the alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution because she failed to properly train Siersma, Soprano and Hurd. Plaintiff also names the County of Monroe as a defendant in the caption of the complaint, but he does not identify the County as a defendant in the "Parties to Action" Section of the form complaint nor does he allege that any of the alleged acts of Siersma, Soprano and Hurd occurred pursuant to a policy or custom of Monroe County. Hurd is alleged to have not disclosed to plaintiff's defense counsel the arrest report that plaintiff claims was false. As discussed below, the claims against Doorley, Monroe County and Hurd are dismissed with prejudice.
1. Monroe County
Assuming that plaintiff intended to sue Monroe County herein, the claims against the County must be dismissed because they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. "[A] municipality cannot be made liable [under § 1983] by application of the doctrine of respondeat superior. " Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati , 475 U.S. 469, 478 (1986). Instead, the plaintiff must "demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the municipality [itself] was the moving force behind the alleged injury." Roe v. City of Waterbury , 542 F.3d 31, 37 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, a county's district attorney's office may not be held liable under § 1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation. Connick v. Thompson, ___ U.S. ___ , 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1358 (2011). There are no allegations that the alleged acts of Siersma, Soprano and Hurd occurred as a result of a policy or custom of the County and, therefore, to the extent plaintiff intended to assert claims against the County they are dismissed with prejudice. See, e.g., Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co. , 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam) ("Where it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive, ... it is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.").
2. District Attorney Doorley
Plaintiff also names Doorley as a defendant and alleges that she failed to train Investigators Siersma and Soprano and ADA Hurd. As noted above, liability under § 1983 cannot be imposed under the doctrine of respondeat superior and in order to find a supervisor liable for the alleged acts of her subordinates plaintiff must establish the supervisor's personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. See Farrell v. Burke , 449 F.3d 470, 484 (2d Cir.2006) (citing Wright v. Smith , 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir.1994) (abrogated on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472 (1995))). There are simply no allegations that Doorley was personally involved in the alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution and, to the extent, plaintiff alleges that she was involved in the prosecution, Doorley would be entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Doe v. Phillips , 81 F.3d 1204, 1209 (2d Cir.1996) (It is well-settled that prosecutors sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are entitled to absolute immunity "from claims for damages arising out of prosecutorial duties that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the ...