651 F. App'x 58
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Vandyke Johnson, pro se, sued the City, NYPD, DOP, NYPD officers, prosecutors, and a probation officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Brady violations, fabrication of evidence, excessive force, and related constitutional deprivations arising from a 2003 assault conviction.
- The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim, immunity defenses, and because the claims were Heck-barred; judgment was entered against Johnson.
- Johnson appealed, arguing the district court misconstrued his claims (characterizing them as malicious prosecution) and that Poventud changed the Heck analysis for Brady claims.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and applied Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.
- The court affirmed: (1) Johnson’s Brady-based § 1983 claims are Heck-barred because his conviction has not been invalidated; (2) NYPD and DOP are non-suable city agencies; (3) municipal (Monell) allegations were conclusory and insufficient; (4) prosecutors have absolute immunity; (5) leave to amend was futile and the claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brady-based § 1983 claims are barred by Heck where conviction remains valid | Johnson contends his claim is Brady-based and not Heck-barred; Poventud purportedly alters the rule | Conviction not vacated; Brady claims that would imply invalidity are Heck-barred absent invalidation | Held: Heck bars the Brady § 1983 claim because conviction was not invalidated |
| Whether NYPD and DOP are suable entities | Johnson sued the agencies directly for constitutional violations | City defendants argued agencies are not suable separate from City under NYC Charter | Held: NYPD and DOP are non-suable city agencies; claims against them dismissed |
| Whether municipal liability (Monell) pleaded adequately | Johnson points to documents and alleged policies causing violations | Defendants argued allegations were conclusory and lacked factual support of policy/custom causing injury | Held: Monell claim inadequately pleaded; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether prosecutors and probation officer are immune | Johnson sought damages from prosecutors and probation officer | Defendants asserted absolute (prosecutors) and other immunities; prosecutor acts were advocatory | Held: Prosecutors absolutely immune; claims against probation officer not contested on appeal (deemed abandoned) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Brady-based § 1983 claims that imply invalidity of conviction are not cognizable absent prior invalidation)
- Poventud v. City of New York, 750 F.3d 121 (2d Cir.) (discussing when vacatur/invalidated conviction affects viability of § 1983 Brady claims)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for advocatory acts)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth in pleading)