Opinion
06 Civ. 13526 (JGK).
December 11, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging violations of his rights to due process and equal protection. He alleges that the defendants "abrogated [his] federally guarantee[d] rights of due process by denying [his] right to be heard," as well as "allowed and assisted the conversion of [his] $2,000,000 in bank safe deposit assets." (Compl. at 1.)
The plaintiff's safe deposit box assets were among the items at issue in his divorce proceedings and in subsequent disputes and appeals related to those proceedings that took place in the New York State courts between approximately 1994 and 2006. (See Compl. Exs. B, C.) The defendants in this action include two state court judges who issued various orders related to those disputes; HSBC Bank USA, the bank that maintained the plaintiff's safe deposit boxes; several HSBC bank employees; and a state court officer who interacted with the plaintiff during one of the prior state court proceedings in which the plaintiff was involved. The plaintiff seeks damages and an order enjoining defendants from converting the assets in his safe deposit boxes. The plaintiff has brought an order to show cause for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
Prior to commencing this suit, the plaintiff filed a similar complaint in another court in this district, arising from overlapping events and asserting claims against other state court judges, state court officers, private citizens including his former wife and her attorney, and an auction gallery. Melnitzky v. Lopreto, No. 06 Civ. 13206 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 14, 2006). In a memorandum order, dated December 4, 2006, Judge Stein dismissed the plaintiff's complaint sua sponte and denied leave to amend, finding that the plaintiff presented "no arguably meritorious issue." Melnitsky v. Lopreto, No. 06 Civ. 13206 (SHS), 2006 WL 3500016, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2006).
At the outset, it is clear that the plaintiff's claims must be dismissed against Justice Ramos and Justice Mazzarelli. Judges have absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed in their judicial capacities. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) ("judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages") (citation omitted); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37, 39 (2d Cir. 1998). This absolute judicial immunity applies unless the judge "acted in the `clear absence of all jurisdiction.'" Polur v. Raffe, 912 F.2d 52, 56 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Stump, 435 U.S. at 357). The claims against Justice Ramos and Justice Mazzarelli involved acts performed in their judicial capacity. The complaint alleges no facts to suggest that either Justice Ramos or Justice Mazzarelli acted in the absence of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claims against these defendants are therefore foreclosed by absolute judicial immunity and must be dismissed.
The Court will hold a conference on the plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the remaining defendants.