Jackson v. County of Rockland
450 F. App'x 15
2d Cir.2011Background
- Jackson, pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing her second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in a civil rights action.
- Claims: false arrest, false imprisonment, and other federal-law violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and RICO.
- Defendants include County of Rockland, Village of Spring Valley, federal and local law enforcement, AUSAs, defense counsel, and related officials.
- Allegations center on Jackson's December 2001 federal conspiracy-to-distribute narcotics conviction and purported falsified evidence and suppression of exculpatory material.
- District court applied standard law on dismissals, and this Court reviews de novo; the court affirmed dismissal.
- Appellee Sheehan seeks attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and related RICO considerations, which the court denies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plausibility of § 1983/RICO claims | Jackson contends there was a multiyear conspiracy. | Appellees contend allegations are conclusory and insufficient. | Claims dismissed for lack of plausibility. |
| Conspiracy theory sufficiency | Alleged federal-local cooperation shows conspiracy to deny rights. | Allegations are vague, general, and lack factual support. | Insufficient to withstand dismissal. |
| FTCA exhaustion | FTCA claims should proceed pending exhaustion. | Exhaustion not shown; jurisdiction lacking. | FTCA claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion. |
| Attorney’s fees for Sheehan | Sheehan seeks fees as prevailing defendant. | Pro se status bars § 1988 fees; no RICO injury shown. | Fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (clarified plausibility standard and context-specific review)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings; strong inference standard)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (ordinary rules apply to pleading discrimination claims; no heightened prima facie requirement)
- Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2004) (exhaustion required for FTCA claims; jurisdictional bar)
- Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1991) (pro se litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees under § 1988)
- Kirch v. Liberty Media Corp., 449 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat dismissal)
- Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1997) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(1)/(6) dismissals)