Hunter v. Williams et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's May 8, 2014 Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 18 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED that Hunter's complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 9/5/14.{order served via regular mail on plaintiff} (nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
BRIAN HUNTER,
Plaintiff,

9:13-cv-725
(GLS/ATB)

v.
JAMES J. WILLIAMS et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Brian Hunter
Pro Se
C#95414
CNY PC
P.O. Box 300
Marcy, NY 13403
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

BRUCE J. BOIVIN
Assistant Attorney General

Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Brian Hunter commenced this action against

defendants James J. Williams, assistant attorney general, Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, and the
Attorney General’s Office, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due
process violations in conjunction with his involuntary commitment to a
secure treatment facility as a sex offender, pursuant to the New York
Mental Hygiene Law (MHL). (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 6, Dkt. No. 1.) Hunter seeks
money damages in the amount of $5.5 million. (Id. ¶ 8.)
Upon initial review of Hunter’s complaint and in forma pauperis
application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court dismissed with
prejudice Hunter’s claims against the Attorney General’s Office. (Dkt. No.
4 at 4-6.) Williams and Schneiderman have filed a pre-answer motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 18.)
In a Report-Recommendation (R&R) dated May 8, 2014, Magistrate
Judge Andrew T. Baxter recommended that the motion to dismiss be
granted and Hunter’s complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 25.) Hunter has
filed objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 26.) For the reasons that follow, the
R&R is adopted and Hunter’s complaint is dismissed.

2

II. Background1
On July 15, 1989, Hunter was arrested, subsequently convicted, and
ultimately sentenced to a period of incarceration of ten to twenty years, with
a “maximum [release] date of July 10, 2009.” (Compl. ¶ 6(A)(1).)
However, on that date, instead of being released, Hunter was further held
“in Oneida County,” due to a petition filed by an assistant attorney general.
(Id.) Hunter currently resides at the Central New York Psychiatric Center.
(Id. ¶ 2.) Without further providing any factual background about this
detention, Hunter alleges that holding him beyond his scheduled release
date infringed on his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights,
because it was in violation of preliminary injunctions issued by federal
courts regarding the enforcement of MHL § 10.06(k). (Id. ¶ 6(A)(2).)
III. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court reviews report and
recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a
party properly objects to a specific element of the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and

1

The facts are drawn from Hunter’s complaint and presented in the light most favorable

to him.

3

recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No.
Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *3, *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006).
In those cases where no party has filed an objection, only vague or general
objections are made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments
already considered by the magistrate judge, this court reviews the findings
and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id. at *45.
IV. Discussion
In the R&R, Judge Baxter recommended that Hunter’s complaint be
dismissed, with prejudice, on various grounds. First, he recommended that
any § 1983 claims against Williams and Schneiderman be dismissed for
absolute prosecutorial immunity and lack of personal involvement. (Dkt.
No. 25 at 14-17.) He also indicated that, even if there was a named
defendant who Hunter could add, any claims brought pursuant to § 1983
stemming from an improper application of MHL § 10.06(k) to Hunter would
have accrued in 2009, making Hunter’s action untimely under the
applicable three-year statute of limitations. (Id. at 21-23.) With respect to
the merits of Hunter’s due process causes of action, Judge Baxter
recommended that they be dismissed for failure to state a
4

claim—specifically because, contrary to Hunter’s assertions, the statute at
issue was not “improperly” applied to detain him. (Id. at 17-18.) Finally,
Judge Baxter recommended that Hunter be denied leave to amend his
pleading, as even a liberal reading of Hunter’s complaint fails to state a due
process claim, and because there are no defendants Hunter could add who
would be subject to suit for damages under § 1983. (Id. at 19-21.)
Hunter’s objections all either repeat arguments he made in response
to defendants’ motion to dismiss, or fail to address any specific portions of
Judge Baxter’s R&R, and they are therefore construed as general
objections meriting only clear error review. (Dkt. No. 26); see Almonte,
2006 WL 149049, at *4-5. For example, Hunter argues, presumably in
response to the court’s previous denial of his request, (Dkt. Nos. 15, 20),
that he should have been assigned counsel to represent him in this matter.
(Dkt. No. 26 at 1, 3.) He also appears to argue that defendants here
should “not [be] shielded by qualified immunity” because they “knowingly
acted outside of the law.” (Id. at 1-2.) However, Judge Baxter did not even
discuss qualified immunity in his R&R; rather, he recommended that
Hunter’s claims against defendants be dismissed for absolute prosecutorial
immunity. (Dkt. No. 25 at 14-17.)
5

Lastly, Hunter objects to the findings made by psychologist Dr.
Katrina Colistra in her evaluation of whether Hunter was a sex offender
requiring civil management, (Dkt. No. 18, Attach. 1 at 12, 21-40), asserting
that her report constitutes inadmissible hearsay evidence. (Dkt. No. 26 at
2.) However, Hunter does not provide any legal analysis on this point, nor
does he object to any particular recommendation in the R&R with respect
to this issue. (Id.) The bulk of his objections consist of his general
argument, contained both in his complaint and in his response to
defendants’ motion to dismiss, that MHL § 10.06(k) was applied to him in
order to detain him before trial, resulting in an infringement of his due
process rights. (Id. at 2-7.) However, as Judge Baxter pointed out in the
R&R, Hunter is mistaken with respect to the scope of the court decisions
he cites that have ruled on the constitutionality of § 10.06(k), and also
ignores the facts of his particular case. (Dkt. No. 25 at 18.) Because
Hunter does not specifically object to any particular portion of Judge
Baxter’s recommendations, the court has reviewed the R&R for clear error
and found none. Therefore, the R&R is adopted in its entirety, and for the
reasons articulated by Judge Baxter, Hunter’s complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.
6

V. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s May 8, 2014
Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is
further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 18) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Hunter’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this MemorandumDecision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 5, 2014
Albany, New York

7