Opinion
6:23-CV-1118
11-02-2023
WILLIE THOMAS GOSIER, Plaintiff, v. ONEIDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE et al., Defendants.
WILLIE THOMAS GOSIER, Plaintiff, Pro Se
WILLIE THOMAS GOSIER, Plaintiff, Pro Se
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID N. HURD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On September 1, 2023, pro se plaintiff Willie Thomas Gosier (“plaintiff') filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, inter alia, that defendants have framed him for certain state-law crimes. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.
Shortly after this case was opened, it was administratively closed because plaintiffs IFP Application was incomplete. Dkt. No. 3. After plaintiff sent in the appropriate documents, Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, this action was reopened, Dkt. No. 6, and then referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for initial consideration.
On October 18, 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks granted plaintiffs IFP Application and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Dkt. No. 8. As Judge Dancks explained, all of the named defendants-the Oneida County District Attorney's Office, the District Attorney, and several Assistant District Attorneys-were shielded by various immunity principles. Id. And because the facts of plaintiffs complaint involved events integrally related to the prosecutorial phase of plaintiffs state-law criminal proceeding, Judge Dancks concluded that leave to amend would be futile. Id.
Plaintiff has filed objections. Dkt. No. 9. There, plaintiff concedes that official-capacity claims against these defendants might be barred, but argues that he should still be able to pursue individual-capacity claims against some or all of the named defendants for the alleged violations of his rights. Id.
Upon de novo review of plaintiffs objections, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The distinction between official- and individual-capacity claims can be confusing. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the scope of prosecutorial immunity from even individual-capacity claims is incredibly broad, reaching exactly the kinds of improper acts alleged by plaintiff in his pleading. See, e.g., Flagler v. Trainor, 663 F.3d 543, 547 (2d Cir. 2011). Instead of permitting a damages remedy against a prosecutor (even in their so-called “individual capacity”), courts have “pointed to other methods, such as criminal and professional sanctions, to deter and redress wrongdoing.” Anilao v. Spota, 27 F.4th 855, 863 n.3 (2d Cir. 2022).
In his objection, plaintiff offers to lower the amount of his money damages request and/or indicates that he would be satisfied with some form of equitable relief (“I will just settle for it all to be taken off my record completely[.]”). Dkt. No. 9. But even that kind of a § 1983 claim would be subject to dismissal under abstention principles because it would require the Court to intervene in a state-court criminal proceeding. See, e.g., Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 73 (2013).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation is ACCEPTED; and
2. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment accordingly and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.