From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNamara v. Kaye

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Oct 20, 2009
360 F. App'x 177 (2d Cir. 2009)

Summary

affirming the dismissal of a CPLR Article 78 claim in a case not involving diversity jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Dukes v. N.Y.C. Emps.' Ret. Sys.

Opinion

No. 08-4561-cv.

October 20, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Michael D. Diederich, Jr., Stony Point, NY, for Appellant.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York. Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Michelle Aronowitz, Deputy Solicitor General, Richard O. Jackson, Assistant Solicitor General, Of Counsel, for Appellees.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.



SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff, Maureen McNamara, appeals from a judgment entered August 18, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J.). On defendant's motion, the district court dismissed McNamara's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a cause of action. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We have considered McNamara's arguments, and they are without merit. The majority of her claims fail on one or more of the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official judicial immunity, and standing. Arguably, claims under the ADA; the First Amendment; and the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Guarantee clauses survive; however, to the extent that they do, McNamara has not plausibly pleaded sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss. Her CPLR Article 78 claim fails for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Morningside Supermarket Corp. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health, 432 F.Supp.2d 334, 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Cartagena v. City of N.Y., 257 F.Supp.2d 708, 710 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

We note finally, in dicta, that we do not rely upon the district court's application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in affirming. Rooker-Feldman only applies when the requested federal court remedy of an alleged injury caused by a state court judgment would require overturning or modifying that state court judgment. See Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005). Inasmuch as McNamara's claims challenge the procedures applied in all attorney disciplinary proceedings and seek damages and prospective relief rather than a modification of her suspension or reinstatement orders, her claims would not appear to be barred by Rooker-Feldman. Nevertheless, her claims were properly dismissed for the reasons noted above.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

McNamara v. Kaye

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Oct 20, 2009
360 F. App'x 177 (2d Cir. 2009)

affirming the dismissal of a CPLR Article 78 claim in a case not involving diversity jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Dukes v. N.Y.C. Emps.' Ret. Sys.

In McNamara v. Kaye, 360 F. App'x 177, 177 (2d Cir. 2009), the Second Circuit, in an unreported decision, affirmed a district court's decision to decline to hear an Article 78 claim and dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Summary of this case from E. End Eruv Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Southampton

In McNamara, the Second Circuit further added, in dicta, that a plaintiff's claims, insomuch as they challenge only "the procedures applied in all attorney disciplinary proceedings and seek damages and prospective relief rather than a modification of [the plaintiff's] suspension or reinstatement orders," would not be barred by Rooker-Feldman.

Summary of this case from McKnight v. Middleton

In McNamara, the Second Circuit further added, in dicta, that a plaintiff's claims, insomuch as they challenge only "the procedures applied in all attorney disciplinary proceedings and seek damages and prospective relief rather than a modification of [the plaintiff's] suspension or reinstatement orders," would not be barred by Rooker-Feldman.

Summary of this case from McKnight v. Middleton

In McNamara, the Second Circuit further added, in dicta, that a plaintiff's claims, insomuch as they challenge only "the procedures applied in all attorney disciplinary proceedings and seek damages and prospective relief rather than a modification of [the plaintiff's] suspension or reinstatement orders," would not be barred by Rooker-Feldman. 2009 WL 3377914, at * 1.

Summary of this case from Dowlah v. Dowlah
Case details for

McNamara v. Kaye

Case Details

Full title:Maureen MCNAMARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chief Judge Judith S. KAYE, New…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Oct 20, 2009

Citations

360 F. App'x 177 (2d Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Smith

Rather, Plaintiff is challenging the manner in which those orders have been executed, as he is under the…

W&D Imports, Inc. v. Lia

Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (1) to declare (a) that the decision in the…