Jones v. Acker

Background

Warren Jones and Shelly Jones, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a pleading titled “Writ of Quo Warrento” against Judge Christi J. Acker, a justice of the New York Supreme Court in Dutchess County. They asserted that Judge Acker violated their constitutional rights, acted without jurisdiction, and committed an unspecified tort. They sought a writ challenging Judge Acker’s authority to hold office, compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.

The court had previously allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court described the complaint as difficult to understand because it consisted largely of legal terminology and did not include facts explaining the events that led to the lawsuit. The court assumed that the plaintiffs sued Judge Acker because she was or had been presiding over a state-court matter involving them.

Reasons for dismissal

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The plaintiffs alleged generally that their rights had been violated but did not provide enough factual detail for the court to determine what happened or whether Judge Acker could be held legally responsible.

The court also applied judicial immunity. Judges are generally immune from damages claims for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities, including actions arising from or related to cases before them. The court explained that immunity does not apply when a judge acts outside her judicial capacity or without jurisdiction, but it found that the plaintiffs alleged no facts showing either circumstance. The plaintiffs also alleged no facts showing that a declaratory decree had been violated, that declaratory relief was unavailable, or that an appeal was unavailable.

Based on the allegations seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant, the court dismissed the claims as barred by judicial immunity and treated them as frivolous under the statute governing fee-free lawsuits. The court also dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.

Leave to amend and other rulings

Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, the court granted them 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must provide more information about the events underlying their claims and detail how each defendant was involved. If they do not file an amended complaint within the permitted time, the court stated that the Clerk of Court will be directed to enter judgment.

The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. It directed the Clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed as frivolous, on immunity grounds, and for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead. The order did not decide the truth of the plaintiffs’ underlying allegations because it found the pleading legally and factually insufficient and applied judicial immunity at the screening stage.