JONES v. CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Matthew Jones, proceeding pro se, appeals from the sua sponte dismissal of his consolidated complaint against defendants the State of Connecticut Superior Court, mental health care provider Laura Lodge, Yale University, state prosecutor Laura DeLeo, and the Guilford Police Department, alleging violations of various constitutional rights, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and federal criminal statutes, as well as state negligence and privacy laws, arising from his arrest and prosecution for stalking, as well as his schizophrenia diagnosis and receipt of involuntary treatment. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), see Zaleski v. Burns, 606 F.3d 51, 52 (2d Cir. 2010), accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Jones’s favor, see Biro v. Condé Nast, 807 F.3d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015). In applying these principles here, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm largely for the reasons stated by the district court.

First, the district court correctly determined that both the state court and prosecutor were entitled to immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100–01, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (holding that states are immune from suit in federal court, absent consent); accord Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. McDonald, 779 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 2015); see also Simon v. City of New York, 727 F.3d 167, 171–72 (2d Cir. 2013) (affording prosecutors absolute immunity for initiation and pursuit of criminal prosecution).

Second, Jones identifies no statutory basis for a private right of action under the alleged criminal statutes. See Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79–80, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) (holding no private action under criminal statutes absent clear statutory basis for such inference); accord Alaji Salahuddin v. Alaji, 232 F.3d 305, 308 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”).

Third, Jones has abandoned any challenge to the remainder of the district court’s ruling by not raising those issues in his appellate brief. See Higazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 168 n.7 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An argument or an issue that is not raised in the appellate brief may be considered abandoned.”). In any event, even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), Jones’s allegations do not support a plausible claim for relief, see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (approving dismissal of complaint based on “irrational or ․ wholly incredible” allegations).

We have considered Jones’s remaining arguments, including his November 2017 motion to strike the state defendants’ letter informing this Court that they do not intend to file an appearance in this appeal because they were not served, and did not appear, in the district court, and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we DENY Jones’s motion to strike the state defendants’ letter, and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.