Hancock v. McLaughlin et al

Filing 24

OPINION AND ORDER: The August 11 State Motion and the October 20 Jujjavarapu Motion are granted. The plaintiff's claims against defendants Ward, McLaughlin, and Jujjavarapu are dismissed. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 12/13/2010) (lnl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X : EMANUEL HANCOCK, : Plaintiff, : : -v: : : HON. EDWIN MCLAUGHLIN, et al. Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------X Appearances: For the plaintiff: Emanuel Hancock, pro se 192 Bradhurst Avenue #2 New York, NY 10039

10 Civ. 4607 (DLC) OPINION AND ORDER

For the defendants Laura Ward and Edwin McLaughlin: Andrew Cuomo Susan Anspach Attorney General's Office, State of New York 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, NY 10271 For the defendant Naga Jujjavarapu: Eva Marie Dowdell Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. District Attorney's Office, New York County One Hogan Place New York, NY 10013 DENISE COTE, District Judge: The pro se plaintiff Emanuel Hancock ("Hancock") has brought suit against two state judges, an assistant district attorney, and two police officers, alleging malicious prosecution and deliberate violations of his civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983").

The

judges and prosecutor have moved to dismiss the complaint against them. granted. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the plaintiff's amended complaint and from the state court decision reversing his conviction and dismissing the indictment.1 The plaintiff alleges For the following reasons, both motions are

that he was sitting in a parked car in front of his home on August 11, 2008, when police officers Glenn Crystal ("Crystal") and Steven Carra ("Carra") approached the car. The police

officers searched Hancock's car and found a forged driver's license. Hancock was arrested and charged under a multipleHe alleges that Carra and Crystal provided

count indictment.

false testimony to the grand jury, "along with [Assistant District Attorney Naga] Jujjavarapu" ("Jujjavarapu"). At a

pretrial suppression hearing conducted by the Honorable Laura A. Ward ("Ward"), the defendant's motion to suppress the driver's license was denied. Hancock was convicted at a jury trial

before the Honorable Edward J. McLaughlin ("McLaughlin") of criminal possession of a forged instrument on or about March 10, 2009, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He

1

People v. Hancock, 896 N.Y.S.2d 680 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010). 2

appealed the conviction.

On March 25, 2010, the Appellate

Division reversed the conviction, granted the motion to suppress the evidence, and dismissed the indictment against Hancock. Hancock was released from prison on March 26, 2010, after serving approximately twenty months. The plaintiff commenced this action on June 14, 2010, seeking more than $20 million in compensatory and punitive damages for his loss of liberty, some lost and damaged property, and pain and suffering. In his original complaint, he named

Carra, Crystal, Ward, McLaughlin and Jujjavarapu as defendants. On August 11, Ward and McLaughlin (the "State Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (the "State Motion") on the grounds that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. The plaintiff's opposition to the State Motion was due September 10. On August 27, the plaintiff was granted an extension until On September 15, the

October 22 to oppose the State Motion.

plaintiff submitted a proposed amended complaint adding the State of New York and the City of New York as defendants. Court granted the plaintiff permission to file the amended complaint on October 8. In the October 8 Order, the plaintiff's The

claim against the State of New York was dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

3

On October 20, Jujjavarapu filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (the "Jujjavarapu Motion") for failure to state a claim, as barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity, and for failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The plaintiff's In

opposition to the Jujjavarapu Motion was due November 12. response to a letter from the State Defendants, the Court

granted the plaintiff an additional extension of time to