Rolle v. Shields
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER that the complaint is dismissed as frivolous. Since the complaint is devoid of any basis in law or fact, defects of which cannot be cured by amendment, leave to amend is denied. Although plaintiff has paid the filing fee to commence this action, the Court certifies pursuant to 28:1915(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 an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/1/2016 ) *Forwarded for jgm. (Guzzi, Roseann)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
C/M
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------- X
:
NEHEMIAH ROLLE,
:
Plaintiff,
: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
- against : ORDER
:
ANNA Y. SHIELDS,
: 16 Civ. 2487 (BMC)(LB)
1
Defendant.
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------- X
COGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Nehemiah Rolle, appearing pro se, filed this action against United States
Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields. Plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence this action. The
complaint is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
This case relates to a previously filed action by plaintiff, Rolle v. Hardwick, No. 14-CV5247 (E.D.N.Y.) (“Hardwick”). An entry of default was entered in that case against defendant
Hardwick for failing to appear, and plaintiff moved for default judgment. However, Magistrate
Judge Shields issued a Report and Recommendation to District Judge Seybert recommending
denial of the motion for a default judgment and that the defendant should be allowed to file a late
answer. Apparently upset by that Report and Recommendation,2 plaintiff sued Magistrate Judge
Shields in the instant case, alleging various constitutional violations in connection with her
conduct while presiding over Hardwick. Plaintiff seeks the removal of Magistrate Judge Shields
“from all of the Plaintiff’s cases” and a declaratory judgment.
1
The Court understands that plaintiff intended to name Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields notwithstanding the
misspelling of her first name in the complaint.
2
That action has since been reassigned to the undersigned. Noting that no objections had been filed, I adopted the
Report and Recommendation, and denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment for the reasons stated therein. See
Hardwick, No. 02:14-CV-5247, Dkt. No. 29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and allow the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). At the pleading 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 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678), aff’d, 133
S. Ct. 1659 (2013). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true,
this tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court is aware that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that
“a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
Even if plaintiff has paid the court’s filing fee, a district court may dismiss the action, sua
sponte, if it determines that the action is frivolous. See Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street
Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2000). An action is frivolous when either: (1) 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 indisputably meritless legal theory. See Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25 (1992); Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (2d Cir. 1998).
DISCUSSION
It is well-settled that judges have absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed
in their judicial capacities. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) (“[J]udicial
immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages.”) (citation
omitted). This absolute “judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or
2
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 (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356
(1978)); see also Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2009). Moreover, in cases of judicial
immunity, a Court may dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, without affording a hearing or other
notice of dismissal. See Tapp v. Champagne, 164 F. App’x 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order)
(affirming sua sponte dismissal of § 1983 claims against judges protected by absolute immunity).
Here, plaintiff’s allegations relate to actions taken by Magistrate Judge Shields in her
judicial capacity; therefore, she is entitled to absolutely immunity from suit for her conduct.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against Magistrate Judge Shields are clearly frivolous. Plaintiff’s
attempt to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, rather than damages, does not alter the Court’s
conclusion. See Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2004) (injunctive relief); Guerin v.
Higgins, 8 F. App’x 31 (2d Cir. 2001) (declaratory). The complaint is dismissed as frivolous.
LITIGATION HISTORY
Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court. In addition to this case, he has filed 19 other actions:
Rolle v. Nassau Community College, No. 95-CV-203 (DRH) (closed Dec. 16, 1998); Rolle v.
Fanelli, No. 96-CV-585 (DRH) (closed Dec. 16, 1998); Rolle v. Nassau County, No. 99-CV2587 (DRH) (closed Apr. 16, 2002); Rolle v. DeRiggi, No. 00-CV-3872 (DRH) (closed Jan. 30,
2001);Rolle v. Nassau County Correctional Facility, No. 01-CV-2414 (DRH) (closed Nov. 18,
2004); Rolle v. Meenan, No. 01-CV-2719 (DRH) (closed July 30, 2001); Rolle v. Cassidy, No.
01-CV-3172 (DRH) (closed June 4, 2001); Rolle v. Judge Honorof, No. 01-CV-6667 (DRH)
(closed Mar. 11, 2002); Rolle v. Judge Ruskin, No. 02-CV-3829 (DRH) (closed Sept. 5, 2003);
Rolle v. McCarthy, No. 02-CV-4398 (DRH) (closed Oct. 24, 2007); Rolle v. Judge Ort, No. 02CV-4171 (DRH) (closed Aug. 29, 2003); Rolle v. Judge LaPera, No. 03-CV-1540 (DRH) (closed
Apr. 23, 2004); Rolle v. Kurtzrock, No. 03-CV-1789 (DRH) (closed Mar. 15, 2004); Rolle v.
3
Judge Carter, No. 03-CV-2039 (DRH) (closed Dec. 9, 2003); Rolle v. Judge Berkowitz, No. 03CV-3535 (DRH) (closed July 6, 2007); Rolle v. Magistrate Judge Boyle, No. 05-CV-3362 (JS)
(closed Oct. 5, 2005); Hardwick, No. 14-CV-5247 (BMC) (pending); Rolle v. Judge Girardi, No.
15-CV-1745 (JS) (closed Mar. 4, 2016); Rolle v. Paternostro, No. 15-CV-5205 (AMD)
(pending). Nine of the cases, including this action, have been filed against state or federal
judicial officers. See Rolle v. Judge Honorof, No. 01-CV-6667; Rolle v. Judge Ruskin, No. 02CV-3829; Rolle v. Judge Ort, No. 02-CV-4171; Rolle v. Judge LaPera, No. 03-CV-1540; Rolle
v. Judge Carter, No. 03-CV-2039; Rolle v. Judge Berkowitz, No. 03-CV-3535; Rolle v.
Magistrate Judge Boyle, No. 05-CV-3362; Rolle v. Judge Girardi, No. 15-CV-1745.
The Court will not tolerate any further frivolous litigation. “The district courts have the
power and obligation to protect the public and the efficient administration of justice from
individuals who have a history of litigation entailing vexation, harassment and needless expense
to other parties and an unnecessary burden on the courts and their supporting personnel.” Lau v.
Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Moates
v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (district court may enjoin parties from
filing further lawsuits upon notice and an opportunity to be heard); Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792
F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986) (outlining factors to be considered in imposing filing injunction). In
light of plaintiff’s litigation history, he is warned that he must refrain from filing any further
frivolous actions or risk the imposition of a filing injunction. Such an injunction would prohibit
him from filing any further actions in this district without prior court approval.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous. Since the complaint is devoid of
any basis in law or fact, defects of which cannot be cured by amendment, leave to amend is
denied.
4
Although plaintiff has paid the filing fee to commence 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 an appeal. See Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action and to close this
case.
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by Brian
M. Cogan
___________________________________
U.S.D.J.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 1, 2016
5
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?