Plaintiff, acting pro se,* appealed a federal district court’s sua sponte** dismissal of Plaintiff's civil rights complaint. The district court had viewed Plaintiff's action to be asserting claims against a New York Supreme Court Justice under color of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Plaintiff alleged that the Justice, presiding over domestic relations proceedings involving Plaintiff in state court, violated his constitutional rights in making certain rulings in the course of the state proceedings. The federal district court, sua sponte, dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without providing Plaintiff "notice and an opportunity to be heard" by summarily applying the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity to the court's action. Plaintiff appealed.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, explaining:
1. Federal district courts have the inherent authority to dismiss a complaint sua sponte as frivolous even where, as here, the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee, if the claims “lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” citing Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14; and
2. Although this Circuit has "repeatedly warned against dismissing a complaint sua sponte without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, as doing so 'is, at a minimum, bad practice in numerous contexts and is reversible error in others,' this court has nevertheless articulated several exceptions where sua sponte dismissal of a fee-paid complaint may be appropriate," i.e. when it is “unmistakably clear” that the underlying case is frivolous or the court lacks jurisdiction.
The Circuit Court opined that a review of the complaint confirms the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are barred by judicial immunity. Citing Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, the Circuit Court noted “[J]udges generally have absolute immunity from suits for money damages for their judicial actions” and “even allegations of bad faith or malice cannot overcome judicial immunity.”
Further, the Circuit Court noted that judges enjoy absolute immunity from personal liability for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction and such "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.”
In the words of the Circuit
Court, "In sum, the
district court properly dismissed the claims sua sponte based on absolute judicial immunity" [citing Deem v.
DiMella-Deem, 941 F.3d 618], affirming the sua sponte dismissal of complaint as
frivolous based on absolute judicial immunity] "because it is 'unmistakably
clear' based on the allegations in the complaint that judicial immunity applies
in this particular case and that the claims are thus legally frivolous". Accordingly, the Circuit Court held that the
district court "was not required to provide [Plaintiff] with notice and an
opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal" of Plaintiff's appeal.
* Pro se [Latin] meaning for or on one's own behalf. See 28 U.S.C. §1654, which provides as follows: "In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein."
** Sua Sponte [Latin]: acting on one's own accord. Used to describe an action where a court has taken notice of an issue on its own motion, without prompting or suggestion from any party, and made a ruling concerning the situation.
Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.