Viverette v. Judge Susan R. Winograd

Background

Ontia Viverette, who was representing herself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her federal constitutional rights. She challenged a New York Housing Court judgment entered on May 8, 2025, which awarded possession of her apartment to Intervale Gardens LLC and led to an eviction warrant. Viverette alleged that the landlord served the petition and notice at Apartment 5F rather than Apartment 3A, where she said she lived, and therefore that she was not properly served.

Viverette sued Housing Court Judges Susan R. Winograd, Rina Gurung, and Amira E. Hassan; New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term Justice Ta-Tanisha James; an unidentified Housing Court clerk; and Intervale Gardens LLC. She sought to stop enforcement of the eviction warrant, prevent enforcement of any warrant arising from the Housing Court judgment, obtain a declaration that the judgment was invalid, and obtain permission to amend her complaint later. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.

Court’s analysis

The court first applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents a federal district court from reviewing and overturning a final state-court judgment. Because Viverette asked the federal court to reject the Housing Court judgment and stop the eviction warrant arising from it, the court dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court separately held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Viverette’s claims for damages and retrospective declaratory relief against the judicial defendants and clerk in their official capacities. The court explained that official-capacity claims against state judicial officers and court clerks are generally treated as claims against the state. The court noted that prospective injunctive relief can sometimes avoid that immunity, but it denied Viverette’s requested relief for the other reasons described in the order.

The court also applied judicial immunity to claims against the judges and clerk in their individual capacities. Judges are generally immune from damages claims for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities, and the court extended related protection to the clerk for discretionary duties closely connected to the judicial process. The court found that Viverette did not allege facts showing that these defendants acted outside their judicial responsibilities or jurisdiction. It therefore dismissed the individual-capacity claims for damages and injunctive relief.

As to Intervale Gardens LLC, the court held that Viverette failed to state a claim under Section 1983 because she did not allege that the private landlord acted under state law. The landlord’s use of state-court eviction procedures, without more, did not make it a state actor. The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Intervale Gardens LLC for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action, denied all requests for immediate injunctive relief in the complaint and the order to show cause, and denied leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action.