Andrews

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x

DASHAWN ANDREWS,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER

25-CV-956(EK)(SDE)

-against-

JENNIFER DARIN, DAMIEN MATTHEW BROWN,

AND BIANCA CARTER,

Defendants.

------------------------------------x

ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Dashawn Andrews filed this action in January

2025, challenging his detention in a then-pending state court

proceeding. He has since been convicted and sentenced.

Proceeding pro se, he sought release from pre-trial detention

and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. ECF No. 1. He

asserted that his detention violated several of his rights under

the United States Constitution. Defendants are the district

attorney, defense lawyer, and pretrial services officer in that

case.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), ECF No. 2, is granted solely

for the purpose of this Order. As set forth below, however,

plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed, as to the extent it is

not moot, it does not plausibly state a claim for relief.

Background

The following facts are taken from the complaint, as

well as the New York State Department of Corrections and

Community Supervision’s website. See Vill. Green At Sayville,

LLC v. Town of Islip, 43 F.4th 287, 299 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff was detained beginning on March 20, 2022 for attempted

murder. Compl. 3. Plaintiff alleges this is a “crime that [he]

didn’t commit[]” and that “the victim said [he] didn’t do

anything.” Id. at 4. He alleges his detention violates, among

other rights, his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, his

Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and

seizures, and his Eight Amendment right against cruel and

unusual punishment. Since then, plaintiff was convicted of

attempt murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon in

the second degree, and is now serving a twenty-year sentence.

Incarcerated Lookup, N.Y. Dep’t Corr. & Cmty. Supervision.1

Standard of Review

A district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis

action that “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state

a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Similarly, the Prison Litigation Reform

1 Accessible by searching for Department ID number 25B2662,

https://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov (last accessed Feb. 4, 2026)

[https://perma.cc/987W-Z73T].

Act (“PLRA”) requires courts to screen civil complaints brought

by incarcerated persons against government entities, officers,

or employees. See id. § 1915A. The PLRA requires courts to

dismiss for the same reasons. Id. § 1915A(b).

A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).2 A claim is plausible “when

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57,

63 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009)).

Pro se complaints are “held to less stringent

standards” than pleadings drafted by attorneys, and the Court

will read a pro se complaint liberally and interpret it to raise

the strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537

F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). Still, a pro se plaintiff is not

exempt from “compliance with relevant rules of procedural and

substantive law.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.

1983).

2 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order

accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal

quotation marks.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks release from pre-trial detention and

damages of fifty-five million dollars for, among other things,

the emotional distress associated with being “wrongful[ly]

arrested” and “illegally detained.” Compl. 4-5.

His claim for release is moot, as he is no longer in

pre-trial detention. Thorne v. Warden, 479 F.2d 297, 299 (2d

Cir. 1973) (“Since [plaintiff] is now held as a convicted

defendant rather than merely on a criminal charge not yet

brought to trial, the issue as to the legality of his continued

pretrial detention has been mooted . . . .”). However,

plaintiff’s claim for damages is not moot, as he maintains a

“legally cognizable interest in the result [of] this case.”

Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481–82 (1982).

Plaintiff’s claims for damages are foreclosed by

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994), and their progeny. “[A] state prisoner’s

§ 1983 action is barred . . . no matter the relief sought

(damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the

prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal

prison proceedings) — if success in that action would

necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its

duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). As

it pertains to his damages claim, “a § 1983 cause of action for

damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or

sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has

been invalidated.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 489-90. Here, “relief

would imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction.” Corley

v. Vance, 365 F. Supp. 3d 407, 440 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (applying

Heck to false arrest and imprisonment claims), aff’d sub nom.

Corley v. Wittner, 811 F. App’x 62 (2d Cir. 2020). That is

because “[a] prosecution and conviction, if not overturned, is

conclusive evidence that an arrest was supported by the

requisite probable cause.” Duamutef v. Morris, 956 F. Supp.

1112, 1117 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Thus, plaintiff’s claim is barred,

and because he has not demonstrated that the conviction or

sentence has already been invalidated, the complaint must be

dismissed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1) without

prejudice. Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1999)

(“Disposition of the case on Heck grounds . . . warrants only

dismissal without prejudice, because the suit may be

reinstituted . . . .”). The Court certifies pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal would not be taken in good

faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the

purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.438,

444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to

correct the caption of this case to conform with this Order,

mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff,3 note the mailing on the

docket, enter judgment, and close this case.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________

ERIC KOMITEE

United State

s District Judge

D ated: February 4, 2026

Brooklyn, New Yo rk

3 Plaintiff is required to advise the Clerk of Court of any change of

address. However, as a courtesy, the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested

to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff where he is currently incarcerated:

Dashawn Andrews, 25B2662, Five Points Correctional Facility, 6600 State Route

96, Caller Box 119, Romulus, NY 14541.