Cole v. Smrtic

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ MATTHEW H. COLE, Plaintiff, vs. 1:24-CV-847 (MAD/PJE) HONORABLE MICHAEL W. SMRTIC, Interim Montgomery County Judge; TATIANA N. COFFINGER, County/Family/Surrogate's Court Judge; HONORABLE FELIX CATENA, Retired Administrative Law Judge; and SAMUEL V. MAXWELL, ESQ., Assistant District Attorney, Defendants. ____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MATTHEW H. COLE 271 Market Street Amsterdam, New York 12010 Plaintiff pro se Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge: ORDER Plaintiff commenced this action on May 6, 2024, asserting that Defendants violated his due process and speedy trial rights, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in an underlying state criminal action. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated November 21, 2024, Magistrate Judge Hummel granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and conducted an initial review of the complaint. See Dkt. No. 8. In the Report- Recommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Hummel concluded that, in addition to the complaint being subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's due process, speedy trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because Plaintiff's underlying state court conviction has not been reversed on direct appeal or otherwise expunged. See id. at 8-10. Moreover, the Report-Recommendation and Order recommended dismissal of the claims against Defendants Smrtic, Coffinger, and Catena since they are barred by absolute judicial immunity. See id. at 10-12. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim against the Appellate Division, Third Department, Magistrate Judge Hummel found that the claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because the Appellate Division "'is merely an agency or arm of New York State." Id. at 12-13 (quotation omitted). Finally, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended that

the claims against Defendant Maxwell be dismissed because he is protected by prosecutorial immunity. See id. at 13-14. Plaintiff has not objected to the Report-Recommendation and Order. When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court "make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, when a party files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments [that he] presented to the magistrate judge," the court reviews those recommendations for clear error only. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations and footnote omitted). After the appropriate review, "the

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the present matter, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Hummel correctly determined that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff's complaint makes clear that his claims stem from alleged violations of his rights that occurred during an underlying state criminal case. See Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 7 at 4. Since Plaintiff's criminal conviction has not been reversed, expunged by executive order, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of

2 habeas corpus, Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to Section 1983 are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Strong v. Watson, No. 1:22-cv-552, 2023 WL 8439445, *14-15 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023) (dismissing the plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution, conspiracy, speedy trial violations, denial of due process, and denial of equal protection under Heck because the claims "all seek to impugn the validity of his underlying state court criminal charges"). Magistrate Judge Hummel also correctly determined that, in the alternative, the claims

against the named Defendants are subject to dismissal based on absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity. The allegations against Defendants Smrtic, Coffinger, and Catena make clear that these individuals were acting in their judicial capacities and that their actions were not taken in the absence of jurisdiction. Accordingly, they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See Ceparano v. Southampton Just. Ct., 404 Fed. Appx. 537, 539 (2d Cir. 2011). As to Defendant Maxwell, Plaintiff has alleged that he withheld exculpatory evidence in the underlying criminal matter. Since this conduct clearly involves "prosecutorial activities 'intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,'" Defendant Maxwell is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 360-61 (2d Cir. 1987)

(quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff has attempted to assert claims against the Appellate Division, Third Department, the claims must be dismissed because the Third Department is an arm of New York State and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Benyi v. New York, No. 3:20-cv-1463, 2021 WL 1406649, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2021) (citation omitted). Finally, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hummel that, because it is clear that the issues with Plaintiff's complaint are substantive and not something that can be corrected by better

3 pleading, Plaintiff will not be afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint. See Phillips v. New York, No. 5:13-cv-927, 2013 WL 5703629, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2013) (quoting Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's November 21, 2024, Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 8) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for permission to file electronically (Dkt. No. 4) and motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 5) are DENIED as moot; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants’ favor and close this case; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: January 21, 2025 Ma i 2 eg Albany, New York pf bbe CF (hpecz le Mae A. D’Agosting~/” U.S. District Judge