Opinion
5:24-CV-0033 (GTS/TWD)
03-15-2024
JOHN A. PORTER, III, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN HAMLIN NASCI, Defendant.
APPEARANCES: JOHN A. PORTER, III Plaintiff, pro se
APPEARANCES: JOHN A. PORTER, III Plaintiff, pro se
ORDER
THERESE WILEY DANCKS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER AND REPORT-RECOMMENDATION
The Clerk has sent a pro se complaint together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) filed by Plaintiff John A. Porter, III, to the Court for review. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendant Susan Hamlin Nasci, “acting as a non-judicial court employee without proper authority and jurisdiction,” violated his “constitutional rights.” Id. Plaintiff claims “Defendant's actions constitute a violation of the Plaintiff's right to a trial by jury, equal protection of the law, and due process, resulting in substantial emotional and financial harm to the Plaintiff.” Id. The complaint does not include any other factual allegations.
The Court takes judicial notice Susan Hamlin Nasci, Esq., is a New York Family Court Support Magistrate. See https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/5jd/onondaga/index.shtml (last visited Mar. 13, 2024).
Unless otherwise indicated, excerpts from the complaint are reproduced exactly as they appear in the original and errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar have not been corrected.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks: (1) $50,000 in actual damages “for medical conditions and lost income due to severe anxiety and reduced work capacity”; (2) $50,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress “caused by the estrangement from the Plaintiff's son”; (3) $50,000 in punitive damages to “penalize the Defendant and deter similar future misconduct”; (4) “the immediate dismissal” of the “fraudulent child support financial order imposed upon the Plaintiff”; and (5) the “return of all payments made by the Plaintiff under the fraudulent child support order up to the present day.” Id. at 2.
II. IFP APPLICATION
Plaintiff declares in his IFP application that he is unable to pay the statutory filing fee to commence this action. (Dkt. No. 2.) After reviewing his application, this Court finds Plaintiff is financially eligible for IFP status. According, Plaintiff's IFP application is granted.
Plaintiff is advised that he will still be required to pay any costs and fees that he may incur in this matter, including, but not limited to, any copying fees or witness fees.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir. 2000) (finding that a district court may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when plaintiff has paid the filing fee). The Court must also dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
“An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless such as when the claims are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). “A claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory when either the claim lacks an arguable basis in law, or a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint.” Id.
To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This short and plain statement of the claim must be “plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The statement of the claim must do more than present “an unadorned, the-defendant-harmed-me accusation.” Id. It must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
In determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, “the court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 1994). “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
The Court will construe the allegations in the complaint with the utmost leniency. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding that a pro se litigant's complaint is to be held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”); see also Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008).
IV. ANALYSIS
Liberally construed, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which establishes a cause of action for “‘the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States.” German v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 885 F.Supp. 537, 573 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983)) (footnote omitted); see also Myers v. Wollowitz, No. 95-CV-0272, 1995 WL 236245, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1995) (“42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the vehicle by which individuals may seek redress for alleged violations of their constitutional rights.”).
Plaintiff also claims Defendant, “acting as a non-judicial court employee without proper authority and jurisdiction, has trespassed upon the Plaintiff's right, specifically under 18 USC Section 242.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) However, 18 U.S.C. § 242 is a criminal statute, which does not give rise to civil liability or authorize a private right of action. See Storm-Eggink v. Gottfried, 409 Fed.Appx. 426, 427 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding there is “no private right of action” under 18 U.S.C. § 242).
“Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights, [but] . . . only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere.” Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). To establish liability under the statute, a plaintiff must plead that each government official defendant violated the Constitution through that official's own individual actions. Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 618 (2d Cir. 2020).
Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and for the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends dismissal of complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend.
A. Failure to State a Claim
The complaint alleges Defendant denied Plaintiff his “right to a trial by jury, equal protection of the law, and due process.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) However, Plaintiff has failed to adequately set forth sufficient factual content to allow this Court to reasonably infer Defendant was personally involved and liable for the alleged unconstitutional conduct. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Specifically, he has failed to set forth a short and plain statement stating what Defendant did to him, when she did it, and how he was injured. See id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Absent these basic details, Plaintiff's complaint has failed to give Defendant fair notice of what his claims are, and the Court is left with “an unadorned, the-defendant-harmed-me accusation.” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Therefore, it is recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
B. Judicial Immunity
Judges are immune from suit for damages for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Generally, “acts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before the judge are considered judicial in nature.” Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 210 (2d Cir. 2009). “Even allegations of bad faith or malice cannot overcome judicial immunity.” Id. at 209. This is because, “[w]ithout insulation from liability, judges would be subject to harassment and intimidation.” Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994). In addition, Section 1983, as amended in 1996, provides that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Judicial immunity does not apply when a judge takes action “outside” his or her judicial capacity, or when a judge takes action that, although judicial in nature, is taken “absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles 502 U.S. at 11-12; see also Bliven, 579 F.3d at 209-10 (describing actions that are judicial in nature). But “the scope of [a] judge's jurisdiction must be construed broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).
“New York Family Court Support Magistrates, as New York State judicial officers, enjoy this judicial immunity, when presiding over child support proceedings.” Cora v. Wright, No. 1:24-CV-0263, 2024 WL 450247, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024) (citing Arce v. Turnbull, No. 21642, 2021 WL 5816687 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) (summary order)); see, e.g., Phillips v. Wagner, No. 1:22-CV-0833 (DNH/ML), 2022 WL 17406092, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2022) (“Plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against Defendant Wagner, who acted as the support magistrate judge, are barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17403441 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2022), appeal dismissed, No. 23-68, 2023 WL 4445323 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2023).
According to the website maintained by the New York State Unified Court System, “[a] ‘Support Magistrate' conducts the hearing, taking testimony from both sides concerning their income and expenses and the cost of supporting the child. The parties can present evidence and witnesses and cross-examine each other and the witnesses. The Support Magistrate calculates how much support the non-custodial parent must pay to the parent with custody, and sets a schedule for regular payments.” See https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/5jd/family/support.shtml (last visited Mar. 13, 2024).
While not entirely clear, Plaintiff seems to assert claims for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to Section 1983 against Defendant, a Support Magistrate, who presumably presided over the child support proceedings that resulted in the alleged “fraudulent child support financial order imposed upon the Plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2.) Plaintiff, however, fails to allege any facts showing Defendant acted beyond the scope of her judicial responsibilities or outside her jurisdiction. See Mireles, 509 U.S. at 11-12. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief was unavailable.
Thus, insofar as Plaintiff sues Defendant “for acts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before [her],” Defendant would be entitled to judicial immunity. Bliven, 579 F.3d at 210; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(iii); see also Mills v. Fischer, 645 F.3d 176, 177 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Any claim dismissed on the ground of absolute judicial immunity is ‘frivolous' for purposes of [the IFP statute].”).
Defendant also would be protected under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In Gollomp v. Spitzer, the Court held that the New York Unified Court System is an “arm of the State” and affirmed the dismissal of a § 1983 claim against a judge under sovereign immunity. 568 F.3d 355, 365-68 (2d Cir. 2009). That holding was recently reaffirmed by the Second Circuit. Bythewood v. New York, No. 22-2542-cv, 2023 WL 6152796, at *1 (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2023) (“The New York State Unified Court System is ‘unquestionably an arm of the state' that shares in New York's immunity to suit.”).
C. Jurisdiction
Although the nature of Plaintiff's complaint makes it difficult to precisely determine which doctrines apply, based on the relief Plaintiff seeks, this Court may lack jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims and/or it should likely abstain from hearing Plaintiff's claims.
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court lacks authority to review a final state court order or judgment where a litigant seeks relief that invites the federal district court to reject or overturn such a final state court order or judgment. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92 (2005); Dorce v. City of New York, 2 F.4th 82, 101 (2d Cir. 2021) (The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “bars federal district courts from hearing cases that in effect are appeals from state court judgments, because the Supreme Court [of the United States] is the only federal court with jurisdiction over such cases.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1257)). “This includes when a litigant seeks relief that invites a federal district court to reject or overturn a final decision of a New York Family Court as to a child support dispute brought in that state court.” Sims v. Kaufman, No. 23-CV-7927, 2024 WL 757338, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2024) (citing Legister v. Radowitz, No. 1:20-CV-9330, 2020 WL 7405672, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2020) (“A plaintiff's challenge in a federal district court to ‘the validity or enforcement of [a] child support order itself' is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” (quoting Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 404 (2d Cir. 2013))).
District court review of claims is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine when four requirements are met: (1) the litigant lost in state court; (2) the litigant complains of injuries caused by a final state court order or judgment; (3) the litigant invites district court review and rejection of the final state court order or judgment; and (4) the final state court order or judgment was rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Dorce, 2 F.4th at 101 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To the extent Plaintiff is asking the Court to grant injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to ongoing Family Court proceedings, including any post-judgment proceedings, the Court must likely abstain from hearing those claims under the Younger abstention doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Plaintiff's claims also appear to implicate the domestic relations abstention doctrine, which requires federal courts to abstain from exercising federal question jurisdiction of domestic relations issues such as divorce, child support payments and child custody. See Deem v. DiMella-Deem, 941 F.3d 618, 621-24 (2d Cir. 2019) (holding that federal district courts must abstain from exercising federal-question jurisdiction of claims involving domestic-relations issues); American Airlines, Inc. v. Block, 905 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that where a federal district court is “asked to grant a divorce or annulment, determine support payments, or award custody of a child,” the court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction of such claims if “there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination in [the] state courts.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Simmons v. NYS Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. 19-CV-3633, 2019 WL 5810307, at *4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2019) (“[C]alculation of support payments is the type of domestic relations issue that the Court generally abstains from hearing.”).
V. OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND
As discussed above, the Court finds Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Generally, before the Court dismisses a pro se complaint or any part of the complaint sua sponte, the Court should afford the plaintiff the opportunity to amend at least once; however, leave to re-plead may be denied where any amendment would be futile. Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993). Futility is present when the problem with plaintiff's causes of action is substantive such that better pleading will not cure it. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Although the Court has serious doubts about whether Plaintiff can amend to assert an actionable claim given the various jurisdictional and immunity principles discussed above, since this is Plaintiff's initial complaint and out of an abundance of caution, the Court recommends that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies identified above.
The Court advises Plaintiff that should he be permitted to amend his complaint, any amended pleading he submits to this Court must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such amended complaint should specifically identify the legal theory or theories that form the basis for his claim. Plaintiff is cautioned that no portion of his original complaint shall be incorporated into his amended complaint by reference. Any amended complaint submitted by Plaintiff must set forth all of the claims he intends to assert against the defendants and must demonstrate that a case or controversy exists between the Plaintiff and the defendant which Plaintiff has a legal right to pursue and over which this Court has jurisdiction.
“A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
Of course, Plaintiff may also pursue his claims in state court if appropriate.
VI. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP application (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED; and it is further
RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide Plaintiff with a copy of this Order and Report
Recommendation, along with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance with Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Plaintiff has fourteen days within which to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW . Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. 2013); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a).
If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order and Report-Recommendation by mail, three additional days will be added to the fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the Order and Report-Recommendation was mailed to you to serve and file objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. 6(a)(1)(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED.