Frazier v. Glazer
1:16-cv-02925
E.D.N.YSep 7, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Arthur Frazier, a state prisoner, alleges two NYPD officers gave false testimony to frame him for seven crimes and sent complaints about that misconduct to the Mayor’s Office, NYPD Internal Affairs, the Civilian Complaint Review Board, and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch in late 2015.
- The Mayor’s Office forwarded his information to CCRB and NYPD Internal Affairs; Frazier alleges he received no substantive responses about investigation status.
- Frazier sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against municipal and city officials and, to the extent applicable, brought a Bivens claim against the Attorney General for failure to investigate or respond.
- The Court granted in forma pauperis status and reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires sua sponte dismissal of frivolous or failure-to-state claims by prisoners.
- The court construed the complaint liberally but concluded that allegations of defendants’ failure to investigate do not state a federal constitutional claim under § 1983 (or Bivens).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a failure to investigate police misconduct states a § 1983 claim | Frazier: defendants’ failure to investigate complaints about false testimony violated his federal rights | Defendants: mere failure to investigate or to respond does not constitute action under color of state law that deprives constitutional rights | Held: Dismissed — failure to state a claim; no constitutional violation from mere non-investigation |
| Whether a Bivens claim lies against the U.S. Attorney General for failing to investigate/respond | Frazier: analogous relief available under Bivens for federal official’s inaction | Defendants: Bivens does not extend to routine failures to investigate or respond; claim not cognizable | Held: Dismissed — Bivens remedy not established for these allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se pleadings entitled to liberal construction)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal reading of pro se complaints)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for construing pro se complaints)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (courts assume truth of well-pleaded nonconclusory allegations at pleading stage)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead factual content plausibly showing liability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (mandatory sua sponte dismissal of frivolous prisoner complaints)
- Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8 (2d Cir. 1999) (procedural context for dismissal under PLRA)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (creates federal counterpart to § 1983 in limited circumstances)
- Morris-Hayes v. Board of Educ., 423 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2005) (§ 1983 enforces rights created elsewhere)
- Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (discussing municipal liability principles)
Conclusion: The complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim because allegations that officials failed to investigate or respond do not, without more, establish a constitutional violation under § 1983 or a cognizable Bivens claim.