Horton v. The City of New York et al et al

Filing 4

ORDER. Plaintiff's claims against Judge Suzanne Melendez, Judge Stephanie Zaro, and Elise Koenderman are dismissed as frivolous. The clerk of court is respectfully requested to amend the caption to reflect the dismissal of these defendants and t o mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff. Plaintiff's claims shall proceed against the remaining defendants. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for pretrial supervision. Although plaintiff paid the filing fee to bring this actio n, the court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of appeal. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/22/2014. (Alagesan, Deepa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
BILLY HORTON,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
14-CV-4276 (KAM)

-againstCITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY
CRIMINAL COURT, COUNTY OF QUEENS;
NYC LAW DEPARTMENT; NEW YORK CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; CORPORATION
COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK;
POLICE OFFICER REINALDO ALVAREZ,
Tax #927853, 103rd Precinct;
POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES 1-8, New
York City Police Department; ADA
HARRY NUSSDORF, Criminal Court of
the City of New York; JUDGE
SUZANNE MELENDEZ, Criminal Court
of the City of New York; JUDGE
STEPHANIE ZARO, Criminal Court of
the City of New York; JUDGE ELISE
KOENDERMAN, Criminal Court of the
City of New York,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Billy Horton brings this pro se civil rights
action for, inter alia, false arrest and malicious prosecution
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
filing fee.

Plaintiff has paid the requisite

For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s claims

against Judge Suzanne Melendez, Judge Stephanie Zaro and Judge

1

This action is related to two other actions recently filed in this court.
See Horton v. City of New York et al., No. 14-CV-4279 (KAM) and Johnson v.
City of New York et al., No. 14-CV-4278 (KAM).

Elise Koenderman are dismissed.

Plaintiff’s remaining claims

shall proceed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards
than pleadings drafted by attorneys, and the court is required
to read the plaintiff’s pro se complaint liberally and interpret
it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests.

Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10
(1980); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185,
191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).

Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the

proceeding, the court must assume the truth of “all wellpleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations” in the complaint.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir.
2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)).
A complaint must plead sufficient facts to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action in connection with his
August 10, 2011 arrest at 105-31 191st Street in Jamaica,
Queens.

(Compl. at 10.)

Plaintiff alleges that police officers

“did unlawfully break into the house with assault weapons drawn
in full military style gear . . . [and] unlawfully arrested

2

plaintiff inside of the house without cause or justification.”
(Id.)

Plaintiff states that his “property and belongings inside

of the house were destroyed and several items were missing after
he was illegally removed by force.”

(Id. at 13.)

Plaintiff

further states that after multiple court proceedings, his case
was dismissed.

(Id. at 14.)

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

(Id. at 16.)
DISCUSSION
Regardless of whether a plaintiff has paid the filing
fee, a district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case,
sua sponte, if it determines that the action is frivolous or the
court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

Fitzgerald v. First

East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-364 (2d
Cir. 2000).

“A complaint will be dismissed as ‘frivolous’ when

'it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit.”

See

Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal
citation omitted).

Here, plaintiff’s allegations against Judges

Melendez, Zaro and Koenderman stem from actions taken in their
judicial capacity in connection with plaintiff’s state court
criminal proceedings and are foreclosed by absolute immunity.
See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (a judicial officer
in the performance of his or her duties has absolute immunity
from suit); Dupree v. Bivona, No. 07-4599-cv, 2009 WL 82717, at

3

*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); Edo v. Queens County Criminal
Court, No. 13-CV-7089, 2013 WL 6732811, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19,
2013).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against Judge Suzanne
Melendez, Judge Stephanie Zaro and Judge Elise Koenderman are
dismissed as frivolous.

Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 363.

The Clerk

of Court is directed to amend the caption to reflect the
dismissal of these defendants.

4

Plaintiff’s claims shall proceed against the remaining
defendants.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to

send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

The case is referred to

Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for pretrial supervision.

Although

plaintiff paid the filing fee to bring this action, the court
certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore
in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July 22, 2014
_________/s/_________________
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York

5