Clemmons v. Albany County District Attorney's Office et al

Filing 6

DECISION and ORDER: that Plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 5 , are hereby Overruled. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 4 , is hereby adopted. The case is hereby Dismissed without prejudice. [Traditionally served upon non-NEF Plaintiff at NYSDOC Sullivan and Eastern Correctional Facilities by regular mail on 9/30/2016.]Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 09/29/2016. (hmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANDRE L. CLEMMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:16-cv-884
(TJM/CFH)

ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, STEVEN M. SHARP, TRACY STEEVES,
and BARRY KAUFMAN,
Defendants.

Thomas J. McAvoy, D.J.

DECISION and ORDER
The Court referred this civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to
the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.3(d) of the Local Rules of
the Northern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringed his rights by
failing to produce and failing to permit Plaintiff’s inspection of certain records related to his
criminal trial and conviction.
The Report-Recommendation, dated August 25, 2016, gave the Complaint, which
Plaintiff brought in forma pauperis, an initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
After reviewing the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended that the Court
dismiss the action without prejudice. Magistrate Judge Hummel found that Plaintiff’s
Complaint constituted an attempt to use a civil-rights claim to undermine his conviction,
1

and were thus barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Heck rule applied
even though Plaintiff did not seek monetary damages in the matter.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. When objections to a
magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a “de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a
review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the
Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendations
of Magistrate Judge Hummel for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation. The
Court will, however, add an additional ground for dismissing the Complaint. Among the
relief requested by Plaintiff is a judgment from this Court reopening a decision by the New
York Supreme Court which denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a judgment pursuant to NY
CPL § 440.10. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to have the Court overturn a state-court
decision on the motion to vacate, the action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
which holds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear “‘cases brought by state-court losers . .
. inviting district court review and rejection of the [state court’s] judgments.’” Skinner v.
Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 532 (2011) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries
Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). Rooker-Feldman applies when “(1) the federal-court
plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff complains of injuries caused by a state court
judgment; (3) the plaintiff invites review and rejection of that judgment; and (4) the sate
2

judgment was rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.” Vossbrinck v.
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423, 426 (2d Cir. 201 4). Section 1983 is not a
means to overturn the findings of a state court.
Accordingly:
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 5, are hereby
OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 4, is hereby adopted. The case is
hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016

3