McNair Bey v. Scarriano et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Reconsideration of the Court's May 3, 2022 decision is denied. In the alternative, to the extent the plaintiff's submission was an amended complaint, it is dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e )(2)(B). The plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. The amended complaint must bear the caption Amended Complaint and have the same docket number as this order (22-CV-56). If the plaintiff does not file an a mended complaint within that time, judgment dismissing this action will enter. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff and to note the mailing on the docket. 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. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 8/2/2022. (Greene, Donna)

Case 1:22-cv-00056-AMD-RML Document 10 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
NOBLESSE MATRIARCH MCNAIR BEY,
:
Plaintiff,
– against –
MATTHEW SCIARRINO, JR., MICHAEL K.
ROZEN, and MR. THOMPSON/THOMAS,

: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
:
22-CV-56 (AMD) (RML)
:
:
:

Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
:
By Memorandum Decision and Order entered: May 3, 2022, the Court dismissed the
:
above-captioned pro se complaint, and granted the plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint.
:
(ECF No. 7.) On July 6, 2022, the plaintiff filed a submission entitled “Amended Complaint”
:
(ECF No. 9), but which appears to be a motion for reconsideration
of my decision dismissing her
:
complaint.

:

To the extent the plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing her
complaint, that motion is denied. Motions for reconsideration are governed by Rule 59 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a litigant to “file a ‘motion to alter or amend a
judgment.’” Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). “A
party may move for reconsideration and obtain relief only when the party identifies an
intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir.
2021) (brackets omitted). “The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration
will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that

Case 1:22-cv-00056-AMD-RML Document 10 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 89

the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the
conclusion reached by the court.” Id.
The plaintiff does not meet this standard. As I explained in my order dismissing the case,
the defendants are immune from suit. Judges have absolute immunity from suits for damages
arising out of judicial acts performed in their judicial capacities. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11
(1991). 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.” Id. at 11, 13 (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Judicial immunity may be overcome only if the court is alleged to have taken
nonjudicial actions, or if the judicial actions taken were “in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction.” Id. at 11-12. Moreover, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 extends
judicial immunity to most actions seeking prospective injunctive relief and provides that “in any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or
declaratory relief was unavailable.” § 309(c), Pub. L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847, 3853 (1996)
(amending 42 U.S.C. § 1983); see Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 74 (2d Cir. 2004).
Prosecutors also have immunity for acts within the scope of their duties as advocates in
the prosecutorial process. Santulli v. Russello, 519 F. App’x 706, 711 (2d Cir. 2013); see also
Ogunkoya v. Monaghan, 913 F.3d 64, 69 (2d Cir. 2019) (“Absolute immunity bars § 1983 suits
against prosecutors for their role ‘in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.’”
(quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)). Immunity attaches “regardless of any
allegations that [the prosecutor’s] actions were undertaken with an improper state of mind or

2

Case 1:22-cv-00056-AMD-RML Document 10 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 90

improper motive.” Shmueli v. City of New York, 424 F.3d 231, 237 (2d Cir. 2005); see also
Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir. 2012).
The plaintiff does not claim that either the judge or the prosecutors were acting outside
the scope of their duties. Accordingly, reconsideration of my earlier order is denied.
To the extent that the plaintiff means for her latest submission to serve as an amended
complaint, the complaint is dismissed for the reasons explained in my earlier decision. In an
excess of caution, I give the plaintiff an additional opportunity to file an amended complaint.

3

Case 1:22-cv-00056-AMD-RML Document 10 Filed 08/02/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 91

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, reconsideration of the Court’s May 3, 2022 decision is
denied. In the alternative, to the extent the plaintiff’s submission was an amended complaint, it
is dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The plaintiff may file an amended
complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. The amended complaint must bear the caption
“Amended Complaint” and have the same docket number as this order (“22-CV-56”). If the
plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that time, judgment dismissing this action
will enter.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff and
to note the mailing on the docket. 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

s/Ann M. Donnelly
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 2, 2022

4