Edo v. Queens County Criminal Court et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis: Plaintiff Enekan Edo, currently incarcerated at Rikers Island Correctional Facility, brings this prose complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C: § 1983. The Court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be grant. 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). Ordered by Judge Jack B. Weinstein, on 12/18/2013. (Barrett, C)

FILED

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
· .S. DISTRICT COl IRT E.D.N.Y.

,1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ·
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

· .\· 'DEC 1 9-2013

----------------------------------------------------~-}{

*

: · ··. OOKLYN OFFICE

ENEKANEDO,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
13 CV 7089 (JBW)

Plaintiff,
-againstQUEENS COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT;
JUDGE BLUMENFELD; JUDGE LATELLA;
ADA JACQUELINE RIZK; ADA JENNIFER
TUBRIDY,
Defendants...

-------------------------------------------------------}{
WEINSTEIN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Enekan Edo, currently incarcerated at Rikers Island Correctional Facility, brings
this prose complaint pursuant to 4~ U.S.C: § 1983. The Court grants plaintiff's requestto .
proceed.in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and qismisses the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be grant~ .
, . Staridard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a district court "shall review, before docketi!lg, iffeasible.Qr,
in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a
pri~oner

seeks redress from a governmental entity ~r officer or employee of~ governmental ..

entity." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Uponreview, a district court shall dismiss a prisoner's complaint
sua sponte if the complaint is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such rel~ef." Id.;
Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132, 134 & n.1 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that under PLRA, sua sponte

I

dismissal of frivolous prisoner complaints is not only permitted but mandatory);~ also TapiaOrtiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1999).
Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of
"all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v . Royal Dutch
Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Igbal. 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).
'

A complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Bell Atl. Com. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
It is axiomatic that pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and the Court is required to read the plaintiffs pro se complaint liberally and
interpret it raising the strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007);
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Sealed Plaintiffv. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185,
191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).
Discussion
Plaintiff has two pending actions in Queens County Criminal Court, and seeks to have
this Court dismiss the actions. Compl.

at~ V.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. In order to

maintain a § 1983 action, plaintiff must allege two essential elements. First, ''the conduct
complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law." Pitchell v.
Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994). Second, ''the conduct complained of must have deprived
a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States." Id. "Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights, [but] provides only a procedure for
redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere." Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d
Cir. 1993) (citing City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)).
2

Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon'which relief may be granted against any of
the named defendants. Plaintiffs claims against Judges Blumenfeld and Latella ("the Judges")
must be dismissed as Judges have absoltite'immunitY for acts performed in their judicial
capacities. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,11 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman. 435 U.S. 349,356
(1978); Dupree v. Bivona, No.' 07-4599-cv; 2009 WL 82717, at *1-2 (2d Cir. Jan. 14, 2009).
This absolute ''judicial immunity 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 (quotation omitted); McHenry v. Trager, No. 07 CV
5242, 2008 WL 115391, at* l (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2008).
Here, plaintiff alleges that the Judges "are trying this case in a civil manner, but are
covering it up with criminal statues and code's of penal laws." Compl. at 1!3. Further, plaintiff
alleges that the Judges "are· on the public side of debt in which they use trickery on the Plaintiff
which is called 'Fiction of Law' . .. "ld. at 1!8. Plaintiff's claims against the Judges stem with
his dissatisfaction over the way his criminal c~es are proceeding. As the alleged wrongdoings of
the Judges are acts clearly performed in their judicial capacity in connection with plaintiffs state
court criminal proceedings, plaintifrs c~rums are foreclosed by absolute immunity.
.

.

.

.

~

In addition, '"prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their
\

conduct in 'initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case,' ... insofar as that conduct
is 'intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.'" Burns v. Reed 500
i

U.S. 478,486 (1991) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman. 424 U.S. 409,-430-31 (:1991)); Shmueli v,
·.

.

.

~

.

("

1 f. .. ·..;

.
~

City ofNY, 424 F.3d 231,236 (2d Cir. 2005); ~also Bankhead v. Chu. No. 10 CV 510,2010
WL 935371, at "'2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2010) (dismissing claim for monetary damages against the

3

assistant district attorney in charge of plai~tiff s criminal case, based on immunity). Accordingly,
;

to the extent that plaintiff seeks to bring a claim against Assistant District Attorneys Rizk and
Tubridy for their role in prosecuting his criminal actions, they are protected by absolute
immunity.
Whereas ordinarily the Court would allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
complaint, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 597-98 (2d Cir,. 2000), it need not afford that
opportunity here where it is clear from plaintiffs submissions that there is no possibility of a
plausible§ 1983 claim against these defendants. Therefore, any attempt to amend the complaint
would be futile. Cuoco v. Moritsugu. 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cif- 2000) (denying leave to amend.a

pro se complaint where amendment would be futile).
Conclusion
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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, 369lJ.S. 438,444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Dated:

Brooklyn,N~\~~\ ~ ~

4