Barnett v. Christi J. Acker

Background

Andre-Nigel Barnett brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. He alleged violations of the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. The case concerned a foreclosure action filed in New York state court by Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, against Barnett and Kimberly-Sarah Barnett.

Barnett alleged that Jennifer R. Brennan and Augustin, whom he described as Lakeview’s attorneys, started the foreclosure case despite alleged problems with service and assignments. He also alleged that Judge Christi J. Acker and unnamed employees of the Dutchess County Supreme Court Clerk’s Office failed to docket, process, or decide several of his filings. He further alleged that Acker’s October 1, 2025 order denying his motion to dismiss and granting Lakeview’s motion for summary judgment was retaliatory, unsupported by the evidence, and legally invalid.

Barnett sought money damages, an injunction stopping the foreclosure and requiring state-court personnel to process his motions, a declaration that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, a declaration that the October 1 order was void, and costs and fees. Although Barnett filed an amended complaint without permission, the court considered allegations from both pleadings because he was representing himself.

Claims against Acker and Thompson

The court dismissed the claims against Acker and Thompson. It held that judges generally have absolute immunity from claims for money damages based on judicial actions. That protection also extends to court clerks and others performing functions closely connected to the judicial process, including filing documents and managing a court calendar.

The court concluded that the alleged failures to process, calendar, or rule on Barnett’s submissions were judicial in nature. It also held that Acker was immune from damages claims based on the October 1 order, even though Barnett alleged that she acted in bad faith or made legal and factual errors. Barnett’s assertion that the state court lacked jurisdiction was insufficient because his allegation concerned Lakeview’s standing to foreclose, not the state court’s authority to hear foreclosure cases.

The court also dismissed Barnett’s requests for a declaration that Acker and Thompson had violated his constitutional rights or that the October 1 order was void. The court treated those requests as declarations about past conduct, which judicial immunity barred. It dismissed the requests for injunctions against Acker and Thompson because Barnett did not allege that they violated a prior declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable. The court additionally stated that the requested injunction was barred by the federal law generally prohibiting federal courts from stopping state-court proceedings and by the rule counseling federal courts not to interfere with certain ongoing state proceedings.

Claims against Brennan and Augustin

The court dismissed the claims against Brennan and Augustin for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, but granted Barnett 30 days’ leave to replead those claims in a second amended complaint. The court explained that § 1983 claims generally require action by a state actor or by a private person acting together with state officials.

The court found no facts showing that Brennan and Augustin were state actors. It also stated that even a court-appointed lawyer performing traditional legal work generally does not act under state authority for purposes of § 1983. In addition, the pleadings did not allege facts showing that Brennan or Augustin acted jointly with Acker or Thompson to violate Barnett’s rights. The court instructed that any second amended complaint must include specific facts making such a claim plausible.

The opinion’s caption names this defendant as “Haris H. Augustin,” while a footnote states that the correct name is “Hans H. Augustin.”

Other rulings and disposition

The court denied as moot Barnett’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because the underlying claims were dismissed. It stated that the motion would also have been denied because Barnett had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the temporary-relief motion and to terminate Acker and Thompson as defendants. The pre-motion conference was adjourned without a new date.