Schoch v. Scattaretico-Naber

Background

James A. Schoch filed an amended complaint against Judge Mary Ann Scattaretico-Naber, Shari Rackman, David Peck, and Jennifer Demers. The order incorporates the court’s May 16, 2024 order and says the amended complaint was dismissed essentially for the reasons stated there.

Federal claims

The order addresses claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims for constitutional violations against persons acting under state law. The court stated that Judge Scattaretico-Naber, identified as a New York Family Court judge, was absolutely immune from these claims. The court also stated that the remaining defendants were not state actors who could be sued under Section 1983. To the extent Schoch alleged that they became state actors through a conspiracy with the judge, the court found that he alleged no facts making that conclusion plausible.

The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the Section 1983 claims against Judge Scattaretico-Naber under judicial immunity and as frivolous. It directed dismissal of Schoch’s Section 1983 claims against the other defendants for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Potential state-law claims and jurisdiction

The court also concluded that Schoch had not shown subject-matter jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims based on diversity of citizenship. The order explains that he did not allege facts showing that he and every defendant were citizens of different states when the original complaint was filed. The court gave examples of allegations about property ownership and a past campaign for office, but said those facts did not establish domicile at the relevant time.

The court further stated that Schoch presented only federal claims, which it found without merit, and did not identify a viable state-law claim despite being instructed to describe the conduct, responsible defendant, and right allegedly violated. In a footnote, the court said that New York professional-conduct provisions did not create a state-law cause of action. It also said that any intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and discrimination claims were inadequately alleged and would be dismissed for failure to state a claim if diversity jurisdiction existed.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the Clerk to dismiss Schoch’s state-law claims, to whatever extent he intended to assert them, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also ordered the case closed. The opinion does not state that any dismissal was with or without prejudice.