Sun v. Dillon et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff)(iu Jian Sun, identifying as "the spiritual Adam," filed this pro se action against four state appellate court judges also identified by Plaintiff as "Pharisees." Plaintiff pa id the statutory filing fee to commence this action. For the reasons set forth below, the action is dismissed.Plaintiff does not provide any facts against any of the Defendants named herein. Rather, Plaintiff makes the following statements: Jehovah t he Lord of the host sent the messenger through angel spoke in servant's heart: 'snake, belly home's walking.'Jehovah - the Lord god of host gives the words to servant (Plaintiff) in the temple he made, "Trial with god's law. Apply for jury to prevent insult and unfair behavior." (Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1 at pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff does not state the relief he seeks but requests a Mandarin Chinese court interpreter. (Id. at p. 3.) Attached to the complaint are letters and documents informing Plaintiff that his state court case was calendared for oral argument before also Scanlon v. Vermont, 423 F. App'x 78, 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (citing Neitzke v.Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). In light of t he rudimentary nature of Plaintiffs pleadings, the Court would ordinarily afford Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to provide a statement of claim that wouldcomply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Court declines to afford plaintiff such an opportunity given that this is Plaintiffs third action and because nothing in the complaint gives any indication that Plaintiff has a valid claim against any of the Defendants named. It is unclear what harm Plaint iff allegedly suffered, what acts of Defendants allegedly caused that harm and what federal rights were allegedly infringed. To the extentPlaintiff complains that any of the Defendants violated some religious tenet, such a claim is not enforceable in federal court. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff sues these state court judges for actions taken in their judicial capacity, those claims are dismissed as these judges would be entitled to absolute immunity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (p er curiam) ("judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages.") (citation omitted); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2dCir. 2009). Therefore, the co mplaint is dismissed as frivolous, see Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757,761-62 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) and because the judicial officers named herein would be entitled to absolute immunity for any actions related to their judicial duties. Tapp v. Champagne, 164 F. App'x 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of claimsagainst judges protected by absolute immunity). Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 10/11/2016. (Valderrama, Freddie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------)(

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

JCIU JIAN SUN,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
16-CV-5276 (LDH) (LB)

Plaintiff,
-againstMARK C. DILLON, SHERI S. ROMAN,
SYLVIA 0. HINDS-RADIJC, COLLEEN DUFFY,
Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
LASHANN DeARCY HALL, United States District Judge.
On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff)(iu Jian Sun, identifying as "the spiritual Adam," filed
this pro se action against four state appellate court judges also identified by Plaintiff as
"Pharisees." Plaintiff paid the statutory filing fee to commence this action. For the reasons set
forth below, the action is dismissed.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff does not provide any facts against any of the Defendants named herein. Rather,
Plaintiff makes the following statements:
Jehovah the Lord of the host sent the messenger through angel spoke in
servant's heart: 'snake, belly home's walking.'
Jehovah- the Lord god of host gives the words to servant (Plaintiff) in the
temple he made, "Trial with god's law. Apply for jury to prevent insult
and unfair behavior."
(Comp!., ECF Doc. No. 1 at pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff does not state the relief he seeks but requests a
Mandarin Chinese court interpreter. (Id. at p. 3.) Attached to the complaint are letters and
documents informing Piaintiffthat his state court case was calendared for oral argument before

also Scanlon v. Vermont, 423 F. App'x 78, 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (citing Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).
DISCUSSION
In light of the rudimentary nature of Plaintiffs pleadings, the Court would ordinarily

afford Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to provide a statement of claim that would
comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Court declines to
afford plaintiff such an opportunity given that this is Plaintiffs third action and because nothing
in the complaint gives any indication that Plaintiff has a valid claim against any of the
Defendants named. It is unclear what harm Plaintiff allegedly suffered, what acts of Defendants
allegedly caused that harm and what federal rights were allegedly infringed. To the extent
Plaintiff complains that any of the Defendants violated some religious tenet, such a claim is not
enforceable in federal court. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff sues these state court judges for
actions taken in their judicial capacity, those claims are dismissed as these judges would be
entitled to absolute immunity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) ("judicial
immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages.") (citation
omitted); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d
Cir. 2009).
Therefore, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous, see Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757,
761-62 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) and because the judicial officers named herein would be
entitled to absolute immunity for any actions related to their judicial duties. Tapp v. Champagne,
164 F. App'x 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of claims
against judges protected by absolute immunity).

3