Sposato v. Serrano

Background

Linda Sposato filed the case while representing herself and asking to proceed without paying filing fees. She sought $10 million in damages based on alleged fraud and other misconduct in a Westchester County foreclosure matter, and later also alleged misconduct in a bankruptcy matter. Her amended complaint named private individuals, law firms, companies, and Judges Linda Jamieson and Sean H. Lane. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (civil RICO), the Bankruptcy Code, criminal statutes, and state law. She also sought emergency orders stopping an auction, vacating state and bankruptcy orders, removing liens, and providing other relief.

The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed Sposato to amend. She filed an amended complaint after receiving an extension of time.

Reasons for dismissal

Civil-rights claims. A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority. The court held that Sposato did not allege that the private individuals, attorneys, law firms, or companies acted for a state or governmental body. It therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim.

The court also applied absolute judicial immunity to the claims against Judges Jamieson and Lane. It found that Sposato challenged actions the judges took in cases before them and did not allege that either judge acted outside judicial responsibilities or without jurisdiction. The court further found no allegations supporting prospective injunctive relief or showing that the requirements for declaratory relief were met. It dismissed those claims because they sought monetary relief from defendants immune from that relief and treated the claims as frivolous under the fee-waiver statute.

Civil RICO and criminal-law claims. The court held that Sposato did not plausibly allege that any defendant committed two or more acts forming a pattern of racketeering activity. It dismissed the civil RICO claims for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed claims based on criminal statutes because a private plaintiff cannot direct a federal court or prosecutors to arrest or prosecute someone.

Requests involving the state foreclosure case. To the extent Sposato asked the federal court to interfere with ongoing state foreclosure proceedings, the court held that the Younger abstention doctrine barred that relief. To the extent she asked the federal court to review or reject final state-court foreclosure judgments, the court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred those claims.

State-law claims. The court held that Sposato still had not shown complete diversity of citizenship, which is required for federal jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the parties’ citizenship. It therefore dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because it dismissed the federal claims, the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend because it concluded that another amendment could not cure the defects. It dismissed the amended complaint, denied all pending motions, directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case, and closed the matter. The order did not state that the entire case was dismissed with prejudice; it expressly described the state-law claims as dismissed without prejudice.