Barreto v. County of Suffolk
455 F. App'x 74
2d Cir.2012Background
- Barreto, pro se, sued Suffolk County and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of New York.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed Barreto's amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Barreto alleged municipal liability and other constitutional claims against the County and individuals, including an unnamed assistant district attorney.
- The district court found no plausible Monell claim because Barreto failed to show a violation or a county policy or custom.
- The court also considered prosecutorial immunity and annulled a district court-imposed “third strike” under § 1915(g), vacating that portion of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barreto pleads a plausible Monell claim against Suffolk County. | Barreto contends county policy or custom caused constitutional harm. | Suffolk County argues no viable constitutional violation or policy link. | No plausible Monell claim; affirmed. |
| Whether the unnamed assistant district attorney or Suffolk County DA’s Office may be sued, given immunity and organizational status. | Barreto alleges liability against individuals. | Prosecutorial immunity applies; the DA’s Office is not a suable entity. | Prosecutorial immunity bars claims; DA’s Office not an entity subject to suit. |
| Whether the district court properly imposed or could impose a third strike under § 1915(g). | Barreto argues district court’s order should not bar future actions. | District court flagged a § 1915(g) strike. | Vacated portion of order; § 1915(g) only bars pauperis status, not automatic dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local government liability requires a policy or custom and a constitutional violation)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity for acts in initiating or prosecuting a case)
- Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522 (2d Cir. 1993) (DA's Office not an entity subject to § 1983 claims against municipalities)
- Deleon v. Doe, 361 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (courts should not impose strikes in dismissal orders; must state reasons for § 1915(g) determinations)
- Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1999) (clarifies § 1915(g) determinations and implications for dismissals)