Rivas v. Schreiber

Background

Linda Rivas, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Rivas sued Michelle D. Schreiber, a judge in the New York City Housing Court, New York County.

Rivas appeared to be alleging that she had been involved in a housing-court matter concerning needed apartment repairs and harassment. She alleged that Judge Schreiber dismissed the harassment case without an explanation, became “irate,” belittled her, called her “dangerous” for asserting claims against Ruppert Houses and the New York City Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development, and stated that there was “good cause” to evict her. Rivas alleged that the “dangerous” comments were defamatory and harmed her reputation. She sought money damages and referred to “Section 4101.”

Legal standards

Because Rivas was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally, but those complaints still must provide enough facts to state a plausible claim.

Claims against Judge Schreiber

The court construed Rivas’s allegations of federal-rights violations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits suits against state actors for violating rights secured by federal law. The court held that judges have absolute immunity from suits seeking money damages for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. Because Rivas’s damages claims arose from Judge Schreiber’s handling of Rivas’s housing-court matter, the court dismissed those claims based on judicial immunity. The court characterized claims dismissed on that ground as frivolous under the statute governing fee-free cases.

The court separately dismissed Rivas’s request for injunctive relief. Although judicial immunity does not bar every request for prospective relief, § 1983 restricts injunctions against judges acting in their judicial capacity unless the plaintiff alleges that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief was unavailable. The court found that Rivas alleged neither condition.

Claim under 28 U.S.C. § 4101

The court interpreted Rivas’s reference to “§ 4101” as a claim under the SPEECH Act. That statute limits enforcement of certain foreign defamation judgments. The court held that Rivas’s complaint alleged no facts implicating the statute and therefore failed to state a claim under § 4101 or another federal statute. The court also stated that defamation is generally a matter of state law and, by itself, does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court declined to give Rivas permission to file an amended complaint because it concluded that amendment could not cure the defects. Judge Kimba M. Wood dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case, and certified under § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal.