Augusta v. Gleeson
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, granting Pltff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915 solely for the purpose of this Order. Pltff's complaint is dismissed for the reasons stated herein. The Court declines to give leave to pltff to amend his complaint because to do so would be futile. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 9/13/2012) c/m Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)
~Jk.~£1CE ~J ~\ \ '\_
US DISTRICT COURT E.O.N.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SEP \ 9 20\2
ANTHONY M. AUGUSTA,
-againstJUDGE JOHN GLEESON,
VITALIANO, United States District Judge:
On September 6, 2012, plaintiff, proceeding prose, filed this complaint against the
Honorable John Gleeson, United States District Judge, Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff
alleges that he was treated unfairly because he proceeded pro se in Augusta v. Community
Development Corporation Of Long Island, Inc., 07 -CV -361(JG). Plaintiff seeks damages often
million dollars. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to 28 U.S. C.
§ 1915 solely for the purpose of this Order. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed for the reasons
I. Standard of Review
In reviewing plaintiffs complaint, the Court is mindful that the submissions of a pro se
litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted "to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest." Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006). Under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is
satisfied that the action is "(i) 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." An action is "frivolous" when either: (I) '"the factual contentions are clearly baseless,'
such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy," or (2) "the claim is 'based on an
indisputedly meritless legal theory."' Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434,437
(2d Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff's claim against the Honorable John Gleeson must be dismissed because judges
have absolute immunity from suits for damages for judicial acts performed in their judicial
capacities. See Warden v. Dearie, 172 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S.
9, 11-12 (1991) Qudges are immune from suit except for actions not taken in judicial capacity
and actions taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction). The absolute judicial immunity of the
court and its members "is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice," nor can a judge
"be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error ... or was in excess of his
authority." Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11, 13 (quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff's complaint
contains no allegations suggesting that Judge Gleeson acted outside his judicial capacity or
without jurisdiction. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed because it seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
For the forgoing reasons, plaintiffs complaint is dismissed. The Court declines to give
leave to plaintiff to amend his complaint because to do so would be futile. Cuoco v. Moritsugu,
222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000); Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir.
1999). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 13, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?