Gamble v. Office of the County Clerk in Bronx County

Background

Corey Gamble, who was incarcerated at Wende Correctional Facility, brought the case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that the Office of the County Clerk in Bronx County and Kevin Rothermel, the Acting Bronx County Clerk, denied him access to the courts.

Gamble alleged that he mailed three petitions to the Bronx County Clerk’s Office on July 14, August 14, and September 14, 2023. The petitions concerned requests under New York’s Freedom of Information Law for documents relating to Daniel T. McCarthy’s appointment as an assistant district attorney of Bronx County. Gamble sought a written appointment letter and oath of office. He also alleged that he received a copy of an older legal matter on November 24, 2023. He sought $266,200 in monetary relief.

The court had previously allowed Gamble to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Because he was proceeding that way, the court reviewed the complaint under statutes requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Claims Against the Clerk’s Office

The court dismissed the claims against the Bronx County Clerk’s Office because it held that the office is an arm of New York State and therefore protected by the Eleventh Amendment from this type of federal lawsuit. The court stated that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it through Section 1983. The court dismissed these claims because they sought relief from an immune defendant.

Claims Against Kevin Rothermel

The court dismissed the claims against Rothermel based on absolute judicial immunity. This protection generally covers judges’ actions within their judicial responsibilities and can also cover nonjudicial officials performing functions closely connected to the judicial process. The court concluded that Rothermel was protected because the claims concerned his response to Gamble’s request for documents allegedly maintained by the court system. The court dismissed the claims seeking money from Rothermel as claims against an immune defendant and consequently treated them as frivolous under the applicable filing-fee statute.

Access-to-Courts Claim

The court separately considered whether Gamble stated a constitutional access-to-courts claim even if Rothermel were not immune. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must show deliberate and malicious conduct that caused actual harm, such as the loss or dismissal of a separate, nonfrivolous legal claim. Gamble did not identify a valid underlying lawsuit that Rothermel’s response to the records request had hindered. The court concluded that the allegations showed, at most, disagreement with the response to the records request, not interference with a separate lawsuit, and dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). It declined to give Gamble permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be corrected by amendment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Gamble permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.