Opinion
05 Civ. 5804 (PAC).
August 25, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER
Plaintiff Lessie Anderson ("Anderson") brings this complaintpro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various denials of his constitutional rights by a number of prison personnel and by Bronx Supreme Court Justice Michael A. Gross ("Mr. Justice Gross"), and by the Bronx District Attorney. Anderson seeks damages, injunctive relief, and review by this Court of several determinations by the Department of Corrections and of Mr. Justice Gross's dismissal of his Article 78 petition appealing one such determination. Mr. Justice Gross now moves pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Anderson's complaint as against him, and to dismiss Anderson's request for review of his decision. The motion is GRANTED.
Anderson's claims against Mr. Justice Gross all arise out of his adjudication of Anderson's Article 78 petition. Since this is a motion to dismiss, the facts as alleged, even if occasionally incoherent, must be taken as true. It appears that Anderson began his Article 78 proceeding, challenging the discipline imposed on him after a prison hearing at Rikers Island. The Article 78 petition came before Mr. Justice Gross on March 23, 2005, and he dismissed it.
It is well established that a judicial officer acting in his judicial capacity has absolute immunity against actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d Cir. 1999). This immunity "acts as a complete shield to claims for money damages." Id. Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 bars all claims for injunctive relief against a judicial officer for a judicial action or omission "unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, § 309(c), Pub.L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847, 3853 (1996) (amending 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Since there are no such allegations here, Anderson's claims for injunctive relief against Justice Gross under § 1983 are therefore barred, See Montero, 171 F.3d at 761.
Finally, this Court has no jurisdiction to review Mr. Justice Gross's decision to dismiss Anderson's Article 78 petition. The only permissible review of his decision under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is by a superior state court or the U.S. Supreme Court.Moccio v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Admin., 94 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1999). Anderson's motion for sanctions is dismissed as frivolous. In light of the disposition of this motion, there is no need to consider Mr. Justice Gross's claims that Anderson's action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Defendant Justice Michael A. Gross's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint as regards him and his disposition of the Article 78 petition is GRANTED. All claims against Justice Gross and all claims for review of his Article 78 judgment, as set forth in Plaintiff's complaint, are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED without costs. Plaintiff's remaining claims will be referred to the designated Magistrate Judge.