Opinion
1:10-cv-592 (GLS/DRH).
September 15, 2010
John A. Robinson, Jr., Pro Se, Selkirk, NY, Attorney for the plaintiff.
NANNETTE R. KELLEHER, ESQ., Defendants Town of Bethlehem Police Department, Rice, Whiteley, Hughes, and Town of Bethlehem, Bailey, Kelleher Law Firm, Albany, NY, Defendants Town of Bethlehem Justice, Court, Donovan, Merges, and Goldin, NO APPEARANCE, Attorneys for the defendant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
John A. Robinson, Jr. brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ( See Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 5.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R R) filed July 9, 2010, Magistrate Judge David R. Homer, after determining that Robinson's amended complaint may be filed, recommended dismissal of the claims against defendant Judge Ryan T. Donovan. (Dkt. No. 7.) Pending are Robinson's objections to the R R. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11.) For the reasons that follow, the R R is adopted, Robinson's claims for monetary relief against Judge Donovan are dismissed, and Robinson is granted limited leave to reamend his complaint to assert a claim for declaratory relief against Judge Donovan.
The Clerk is directed to append the R R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is presumed.
II. Discussion
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge for clear error. See id.
Judge Homer recommended that the claims asserted in Robinson's amended complaint against Judge Donovan are subject to dismissal since "`[j]udges enjoy absolute immunity from personal liability for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.'" (R R at 2, Dkt. No. 7 (quoting Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994)) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).) In response, with some further elaboration, Robinson generally reasserts the same allegations contained in his amended complaint. ( See Pl. Objections 2-15, Dkt. No. 10.) Aside from these general assertions, Robinson specifically requests that he be permitted to re-amend his complaint to remove his claim for monetary relief against Judge Donovan and to expand his claim for injunctive and declaratory relief to include Judge Donovan. ( See id. at 2-3.)
"An official's entitlement to absolute immunity from a claim for damages . . . does not bar the granting of injunctive relief or of other equitable relief." Shmueli v. City of New York, 424 F.3d 231, 239 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, § 1983 expressly 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; see also Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 761 (2d Cir. 1999).
Here, Robinson has not alleged or argued that Judge Donovan violated a declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable. Moreover, the amended complaint states that Judge Donovan recused himself from Robinson's case on July 21, 2009. ( See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 41, Dkt. No. 5.) Thus, an amendment to raise a claim for injunctive relief against Judge Donovan would be both legally and factually unwarranted. Nonetheless, casting aside the looming specter of mootness, the court grants Robinson leave to amend his complaint a second time to include a claim for declaratory relief against Judge Donovan. However, unless Robinson can allege sufficient grounds, he may not assert a claim for injunctive relief against Judge Donovan.
III. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 7) is ADOPTED and Robinson's claims for compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Judge Ryan T. Donovan are DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that Robinson is GRANTED leave to re-amend his complaint, in full compliance with the terms of this Order, within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Order, after which defendants shall respond to the complaint as permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide copies of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 15, 2010 Albany, New York
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
In compliance with this court's order, plaintiff John A. Robinson ("Robinson" or "plaintiff") filed an amended complaint. Docket No. 5. Robinson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his constitutional rights by the named defendants. A review of the amended complaint reveals that the amended complaint may be filed.I. Defendant Hon. Ryan T. Donovan
One of the named defendants in the complaint is Town of Bethlehem Justice Ryan T. Donovan. Plaintiff asserts allegations of judicial misconduct by Judge Donovan. See Compl. at pp 5, 12-13. For the reasons stated below, the claims against Judge Donovan should be dismissed from Robinson's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and N.D.N.Y.L.R. Rule 5.4(a).
Section 1915(e), as amended, directs that the Court:
(2) [S]hall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that —
***
(B) the action . . . (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).
"Judges enjoy absolute immunity from personal liability for `acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.'" Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994) (emphasis added) (quotingPierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)). "The absolute immunity of a judge applies however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff." Young, 41 F.3d at 51 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims against Judge Robinson should be dismissed.
II. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the claims against Town Judge Ryan T. Donovan be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and N.D.N.Y.L.R. 5.4(a); and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall issue summonses and a General Order 25 and forward them, along with copies of the complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the defendants; and it is further
ORDERED that a response to the complaint be filed by defendants or their counsel as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after service of process on defendants; and it is further
ORDERED that any paper sent by a party to the Court or the Clerk must be accompanied by a certificate showing the date that a true and correct copy of same was mailed to all opposing parties or their counsel. Any document received by the Court or the Clerk that does not include a proper certificate of service will be returned without processing by the Clerk. Plaintiff must comply with requests by the Clerk's Office for any documents that are necessary to maintain this action. All parties must comply with Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District of New York in filing motions. Plaintiff is also required to promptly notify the Clerk's Office and all parties or their counsel of any change in his address; his failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action ; and it is further
ORDERED that all motions shall comply with the Local Rules of Practice of the Northern District; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order and General Order 25 on plaintiff by regular mail.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14) 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, 89 (2d Cir. 1993); Small v. Sec'y of Health Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 9, 2010