Jones v. Acker

Background

Shelly Jones and Warren Jones proceeded without lawyers and were allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. They first filed a document called a “WRIT OF QUO WARRANTS,” alleging that Justice Christi Acker of the New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, violated their rights during unspecified state-court proceedings. The court dismissed the original complaint on January 7, 2025, but allowed them to file an amended complaint addressing its deficiencies.

The amended complaint concerned a 2019 state-court foreclosure proceeding. The plaintiffs alleged that their house was “illegally foreclosed upon,” that Justice Acker acted without jurisdiction, violated due process, was biased, and erred in granting summary judgment to Pennymac. They also alleged that they did not receive a fair hearing because no live witnesses were presented and because defendants failed to disclose critical evidence and provided misleading information. They sought $100,000 from each defendant.

Federal claims

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows claims for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state authority.

The court dismissed the claims against Justice Acker under judicial immunity. Because the allegations concerned actions she took while presiding over the foreclosure case, the court concluded that she was immune from monetary relief for those actions. The court also characterized claims barred by absolute judicial immunity as frivolous for purposes of the statute governing fee-free lawsuits.

The court dismissed the claims against Fein, Such, & Crain LLP, Blank Rome, and Pennymac for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It explained that private parties generally are not liable under § 1983 because the statute requires action under color of state law. The amended complaint did not allege that these defendants worked for a state or other government body. The court also found that the allegations—that the law firms acted as legal representatives and that Pennymac was a third-party creditor—did not show that these defendants were personally involved in violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional or other federally protected rights.

The court noted that federal district courts are generally barred from reviewing final state-court orders and judgments. It stated that the usual method for challenging a final state-court order or judgment is an appeal to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, rather than review in federal district court.

Possible state-law claims

The plaintiffs did not clearly allege state-law claims. The court stated that, even if they intended to assert legal malpractice or another state-law claim, the amended complaint did not show diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires plaintiffs and defendants to be citizens of different states and requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts establishing either requirement.

Because the court dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, Judge Stanton declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims. The court took no position on the merits of any complaint the plaintiffs might file in state court.

Further amendment and disposition

The court declined to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend. It explained that they had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint’s deficiencies and that those defects could not be cured by another amendment.

The court dismissed the amended complaint under the fee-free-litigation statute, directed the Clerk of Court to enter civil judgment dismissing the action, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying court fees for an appeal.