Tunne v. Spears

Background

Mark Tunne, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee, sued people and entities involved in his Housing Court eviction proceedings. The defendants included Judge Brenda S. Spears; Judge Jean Schneider; Justice Michael Pesce; Justice Michelle Weston; Justice Jaime Rios; The City of New York; The Estate of Fred Zeiss; Alan Zeiss; Mautner-Glick Corp. (MGC); Alvin Glick Sr.; Gerald P. Halpern, Esq.; The Price Law Firm, PLLC; Joshua Clinton Price, Esq.; Heather Ticotin, Esq.; Jose Moreno; and Lorena Moreno.

Tunne alleged that he had lived in a rent-regulated apartment, that eviction proceedings began after disputes over rent and alleged nuisance conduct, and that Judge Spears entered an eviction order on October 6, 2009. The Appellate Term affirmed the order on December 18, 2012, and Tunne vacated the apartment on January 16, 2013. He alleged that the defendants engaged in fraud, conspiracy, harassment, retaliation, and discrimination. He asked the federal court to review and reverse the state-court decision, restore him to the apartment, and award damages.

The court noted that Tunne had brought a prior related federal proceeding arising from the same eviction, which had been dismissed. The court also noted that it had allowed him to proceed without prepaying fees on November 25, 2019.

Reasons for Dismissal

No authority to review the state eviction decision. The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a rule that prevents federal district courts from acting as appeals courts for state-court judgments. The state Housing Court had entered an adverse judgment before Tunne filed this case; Tunne claimed injuries caused by that judgment; and he asked the federal court to review and reverse it. The court therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or vacate the state-court decision and dismissed the claims challenging the eviction order.

Judicial immunity. Judges are generally absolutely immune from damages claims for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. The court held that Tunne’s claims against Judges Spears and Schneider and Justices Pesce, Weston, and Rios arose from their judicial actions in his cases. It dismissed those claims based on judicial immunity, even though Tunne alleged bad faith and malice.

Claims against the City of New York. The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows certain claims for violations of constitutional rights by government actors, requires facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the violation. The court held that Tunne did not plead sufficient facts connecting a City policy, custom, or practice to a violation of his rights. It also concluded that the New York City Housing Court is part of the New York State Unified Court System, rather than a City entity, and that the relevant state court system has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court found that allowing amendment of this claim would be futile.

Claims against private defendants. A § 1983 claim generally requires action under color of state law, meaning action carried out through governmental authority or in coordination with the government. The court held that Tunne did not allege facts showing that the lawyers, law firm, property owners, property managers, estate representative, superintendent, or superintendent’s wife acted under color of state law in connection with the eviction proceedings. The court therefore concluded that Tunne could not state a § 1983 claim against those defendants.

Fair Housing Act claim. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the terms or conditions of housing based on specified characteristics, including race. The court considered Tunne’s allegations that Jose Moreno and Lorena Moreno used racially derogatory terms, but held that any Fair Housing Act claim was untimely. Because Tunne’s tenancy ended in 2013, the two-year filing period had expired long before he filed this action. The court also noted that the claim might have been previously adjudicated or barred by claim-preclusion principles, but its ruling rested on the time limit.

Disposition

The court dismissed Tunne’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the screening statute for complaints filed without prepaying fees. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court declined to grant leave to amend because the complaint gave no indication that relief was available in federal court and amendment would be futile. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order also warned that further repetitive litigation about the eviction could lead to restrictions on filing new actions without prior permission.