Gu v. Didonato

Background

Feifei Gu filed this self-represented action concerning his ongoing criminal proceedings in Kings County Criminal Court and a May 16, 2024 hearing. He named Assistant District Attorney Vincent James Didonato III, Judge Monique Holaman, several New York State Unified Court System judges and administrators, two court clerks, the Unified Court System itself, and his legal advisor, Lawrence Campbell. Gu alleged that the defendants were involved in assigning his hearing to Judge Holaman. He sought money damages and disciplinary action against Campbell.

The court had previously allowed Gu to proceed without paying filing fees. It therefore screened the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Reasons for Dismissal

Unified Court System. The court treated Gu’s claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that generally requires action under state authority. It held that the Unified Court System is an arm of New York State and is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from this federal suit. The court dismissed the claims against that defendant because they sought relief from an immune defendant.

Judicial immunity. The court held that Judges Holaman, Rowan D. Wilson, Joseph A. Zayas, Norman St. George, Carolyn Walker-Diallo, and Keshia Espinal were absolutely immune from liability for the judicial or court-administration acts alleged. The court found that Gu did not allege facts showing that these judges acted outside their judicial responsibilities or without jurisdiction. It dismissed these claims because they sought money from immune defendants and consequently were considered frivolous under the fee-waiver statute.

Quasi-judicial immunity. The court applied similar protection to court clerks Antonio Diaz and Charles Blaha. It held that the alleged involvement in assigning Gu’s hearing was judicial in nature and protected by absolute immunity. The court dismissed the claims against them for seeking money from immune defendants and consequently treated those claims as frivolous.

Private legal advisor. The court held that Campbell was a private party and that Gu did not allege that he worked for a state or other government body. The court further held that Campbell’s alleged involvement in Gu’s state criminal case did not constitute action under state authority. Gu therefore failed to state a claim against Campbell under Section 1983, and the court dismissed those claims.

Leave to Amend and State-Law Claims

The court denied Gu leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over any related state-law claims that remained.

Disposition

The court dismissed Gu’s complaint under the statute governing screening of fee-waived complaints. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Gu fee-waived status for an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.