Reich v. City of New York
1:19-cv-06491
E.D.N.YOct 5, 2021Background:
- Reich was arrested in Connecticut in 2013 on a misdemeanor harassment charge; Connecticut issued an arrest warrant after an alleged failure to appear and sought extradition.
- Reich was arrested in Queens (Nov. 21, 2016), refused to waive extradition, and was held in custody; Connecticut submitted a requisition (Feb. 2, 2017) and Governor Cuomo signed the Governor’s Warrant (Feb. 15, 2017); Reich was extradited (Feb. 23, 2017).
- Reich alleges Cuomo signed falsified paperwork and failed to conduct a “proper investigation” under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 570; Reich also alleges Cuomo’s office failed to produce records in response to FOIL requests.
- Reich filed an amended § 1983 complaint (Oct. 5, 2020) naming Cuomo; service was made on the New York Attorney General’s office but not on Cuomo personally nor by certified mail to the Governor’s office as required by CPLR.
- Cuomo moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), (2), (5), (6). The magistrate judge recommends dismissal with prejudice, citing Eleventh Amendment and immunities, improper service, statute of limitations, and declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983 claims against the Governor in his official capacity are actionable | Reich alleges Cuomo violated federal constitutional rights and state statutes by authorizing extradition without proper investigation | Governor is an arm of the State; Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity §1983 suits; Ex parte Young inapplicable (no prospective relief sought) | Dismissed: Eleventh Amendment bars the official-capacity §1983 claims |
| Whether service of process was adequate to confer personal jurisdiction over the Governor or Cuomo individually | Service on the Attorney General’s office was sufficient | Service on AG was insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2) and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 307/308; no certified-mail to Governor, no personal service on Cuomo | Dismissed for improper service (lack of personal jurisdiction) |
| Whether Reich’s §1983 claims are timely or relate back to the original complaint | Reich contends claims arise from the 2017 extradition; the original complaint was filed in 2019 | Claims accrued by Feb. 2017; three-year limitations bar; amended complaint adding Cuomo (Oct. 2020) does not relate back because Cuomo’s identity was known earlier (no mistake) | Dismissed as time-barred (relation-back denied) |
| Whether Cuomo is immune from suit for acts in the extradition process | Reich asserts Cuomo failed to investigate and acted unlawfully in issuing the warrant | Governor’s acts in evaluating/issuing extradition are quasi-judicial and shielded by absolute immunity; alternatively qualified immunity applies | Dismissed: absolute immunity (and alternatively qualified immunity) bars the claims |
| Whether federal court should hear remaining state-law claims (CPLR §570, FOIL) | Reich seeks relief under state law and FOIL remedies | Federal claims fail; FOIL claims require exhaustion and Article 78 in state court; district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction | Federal court should decline supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed (or left for state court) |
Key Cases Cited
- Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (Section 1983 creates remedies, not substantive rights)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state officials sued in official capacity are not "persons" under § 1983)
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (limits on suits against states; Ex parte Young context for prospective relief)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (immunity principles for prosecutorial/judicial functions)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified-immunity framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (objective standard for qualified immunity)
- White v. Armontrout, 29 F.3d 357 (governor’s extradition role is quasi-judicial; absolute immunity)
- Miller v. Davis, 521 F.3d 1142 (governors entitled to absolute immunity when acting in quasi-judicial extradition role)
- Dababnah v. Keller-Burnside, 208 F.3d 467 (extradition closely linked to judicial phase and subject to immunity)
- Overall v. Univ. of Pa., 412 F.3d 492 (recognition of quasi-judicial privilege for extradition-related acts)