Brik v. Fogel

Background

Roman Brik, who was representing himself, brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state law. He alleged that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights in connection with his New York City press card and related administrative proceedings.

The complaint alleged that the New York City Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment issued Brik a standard press card in April 2023. Brik said he confirmed that the card covered reporting on public protests, First Amendment events, and court proceedings, including proceedings involving his own custody case. He also alleged that he later published articles sharply criticizing the mayor and the administration, as well as its judiciary.

According to the complaint, the press office then began proceedings before the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings to suspend Brik’s press card for six months. Brik alleged that Stanislav (Stas) Skarbo initiated the proceedings, with the knowledge or approval of Samer Nasser and Pat Winnery Kaufman, and that Joe Nguyen participated in them. Brik also challenged actions by Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Fogel, including alleged private communications, closing the proceedings to the public, ordering an in-person trial in agency offices, and issuing rulings by email.

Brik sought a declaration that the defendants’ actions were unlawful and violated his First Amendment rights, as well as injunctive relief related to his press card and money damages.

Ruling on Claims Against Judge Fogel

Because Brik had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

The court dismissed the claims against Judge Fogel under the doctrine of judicial immunity. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from lawsuits for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities, including actions connected to individual cases. The court explained that this protection also applies to administrative law judges performing functions closely connected to the judicial process.

The court found that Brik did not allege facts showing that Fogel acted outside his judicial responsibilities or without jurisdiction. It therefore dismissed Brik’s claims for money damages based on judicial immunity. The court also dismissed the claims for injunctive relief because Section 1983 permits that type of relief against a judicial officer only when a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable, and Brik had not alleged either circumstance. Finally, the court dismissed claims seeking a declaration that Fogel’s past rulings were unlawful, because judicial immunity bars retrospective declaratory relief.

Claims Against the Other Defendants and Service

The order did not dismiss the claims against Samer Nasser, Stanislav (Stas) Skarbo, Joe Nguyen, and Pat Winnery Kaufman. Instead, because Brik was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those defendants.

The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after summonses are issued, and that Brik should request more time if service is not completed within that period. The court also required Brik to notify the court in writing if his address changes.

Disposition

The court dismissed Brik’s claims against Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Fogel. It directed service on the four remaining defendants. The order did not decide the merits of Brik’s First Amendment allegations against those defendants. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.