Ajaero v. The Entire Appellate Division, Appellate Term

Background

Anthony J. Ajaero filed a 182-page, 487-paragraph complaint while representing himself. He alleged that various judges, surrogates, and other judicial officers violated his rights in pending and earlier proceedings in New York State Surrogate, Supreme, and Housing Courts. He sought damages, declarations about the parties’ rights, and court orders stopping the state proceedings, overturning judgments involving a decedent’s estate, preventing New York courts from handling the underlying matters, and transferring those matters to federal court.

The court had previously allowed Ajaero to file without paying the filing fee in advance. Under the federal screening statute for such cases, the court had to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or presented no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a plausible claim for relief.

Claims and analysis

The court treated Ajaero’s constitutional-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

State immunity

The court held that the claims against the New York Appellate Division, Appellate Term, Supreme Court, Criminal Court, Family Court, and other inferior New York courts were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. That doctrine generally protects states and state agencies from federal lawsuits. The court stated that the New York State Unified Court System is an arm of New York State and that New York had not waived its immunity, while Congress had not removed that immunity for § 1983 claims. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against the named court defendants under Eleventh Amendment immunity and because the defendants were immune from suit.

Ongoing state proceedings

To the extent Ajaero sought an order stopping pending state proceedings, the court applied the Younger abstention doctrine. This doctrine generally prevents a federal court from interfering with certain ongoing state criminal, enforcement, or state judicial proceedings. The court held that Ajaero’s request to stay the proceedings and overturn state-court judgments concerned how New York courts manage their own proceedings. It therefore concluded that Younger abstention applied and that the federal court would not intervene.

Earlier state-court judgments

The court also applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court over state-court judgments. The court stated that the doctrine applies when a person lost in state court, claims injury caused by the state judgment, asks the federal district court to review and reject that judgment, and filed the federal case after the state judgment. The court understood Ajaero’s allegations as challenging injuries caused by state-court decisions and concluded that he could not ask the federal court to review and reject those decisions.

Leave to amend and disposition

Although courts often allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a defective complaint, the court held that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. It declined to grant leave to amend.

The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Ajaero and record service on the docket. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous and as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, Younger abstention, and Rooker-Feldman. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.