Court Says Immunity Shields Former New York AG From Malicious Prosecution Claims

A federal judge has dismissed a case brought by a former New York City Council member alleging that a former New York State attorney general wrongly prosecuted him on the grounds that the former state official is protected by immunity.

Ruben Wills, a former New York City Council member, alleged that former New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, because of Wills’ refusal to assist Schneiderman in mounting a case against a political rival, investigated and prosecuted him for crimes Schneiderman knew Wills had not committed. Wills brought claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Schneiderman.

But a judge in the federal court for Eastern New York dismissed the suit, finding that Schneiderman is entitled to absolute immunity for his advocacy for the state in his actions relating to the grand jury. The judge also dismissed Wills’ complaints about Schneiderman’s repeat subpoenas before a grand jury was impaneled and regarding certain reelection materials because Wills never showed those were the proximate cause of his alleged malicious prosecution.

When Wills was a City Council member and Schneiderman was the state Attorney General, Wills was indicted on one count of scheme to defraud, two counts of grand larceny, and three counts of offering a false instrument for filing. These charges were based on two separate alleged instances of Wills misappropriating public money. In the first instance, Wills allegedly failed to return matching funds awarded to him in connection with a City Council campaign. In the second, Wills allegedly used money granted to a nonprofit, NY4Life, for his own personal use. Wills was convicted on all charges except one of the false instrument counts and was sentenced to two to six years in prison.

After Wills was released from prison, the Second Department Appellate Division reversed his conviction, finding that the trial court erred in not allowing him to call witnesses that would have testified that he mistakenly, but in good faith, misappropriated the money at issue. The New York State Attorney General’s office, by then under the leadership of Attorney General Letitia James, declined to retry Wills and dismissed the case against him.

According to Wills, Schneiderman had maliciously prosecuted him and abused legal processes. He claimed Schneiderman investigated and prosecuted Wills because he refused to cooperate with Schneiderman’s attempts to attack other politicians, and because Wills knew that Schneiderman had assaulted a woman, which was not public knowledge.

The judge noted that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for acts taken in their advocatory role, but they are not entitled to absolute immunity for investigatory or administrative actions. Advocatory actions that are shielded by absolute immunity are “acts undertaken by a prosecutor preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of a prosecutor’s role as an advocate for the State.”

The court found that actions alleged by Wills are clearly within the functions of a prosecutor and all of Wills’ allegations about Schneiderman’s use or abuse of the grand jury are entitled to absolute immunity,

The only actions alleged that are not shielded by absolute immunity are Schneiderman’s direction of his subordinates to repeatedly subpoena documents relating to Wills” before a grand jury was impaneled and Schneiderman’s disparagement of Wills in his reelection materials. To state a claim for malicious prosecution, Wills must allege that Schneiderman’s action was a proximate cause of his injury. But Wills does not allege that Schneiderman’s public disparagement of Wills or his issuance of subpoenas against him before a grand jury was impaneled caused him to be prosecuted without probable cause. Because Wills fails to connect Schneiderman’s actions to his alleged malicious prosecution, thie court ruled that this claim failed.

The only legal process alleged by Wills not protected by absolute immunity is the attorney general’s office’s issuance of subpoenas before convening a grand jury. Wills alleges that Schneiderman used the subpoenas “as a tool to harass and attempt to intimidate” Wills. The only misuse of a subpoena Wills identifies is the use of information subpoenaed from his personal email account. But this occurred after a grand jury was convened and is thus entitled to absolute immunity. Given that the amended complaint contains no allegations about misuse of any subpoenas that were issued before the grand jury was convened, Wills does not adequately allege the constitutional violation of abuse of process, entitling Schneiderman to qualified immunity on this claim, the court concluded.

Topics Claims New York