Fishman v. Office of Court Administration New York State Courts

Background

Marc Fishman, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Office of Court Administration New York State Courts, the New York State Unified Court System, Nancy J. Barry, Dan Weisz, and Michelle D’Ambrosio. He sued all defendants only in their administrative or official capacities. His claims arose from his proceedings in New York State Family Court and were brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the New York Human Rights Law.

Fishman alleged that defendants discriminated against him and retaliated against him because of disabilities including traumatic brain injury, post-concussion syndrome, occipital neuralgia, temporomandibular joint syndrome, sleep apnea, and other cognitive disorders. He claimed that defendants denied or delayed requested accommodations, including a note-taker, large-print court orders, access to medical records, real-time transcription, use of notes in court, morning-only appearances, disability-related adjournments, and home-based visitation after surgery. He also alleged that court officials delayed transcripts, scheduled afternoon proceedings despite his need for naps, and failed to address his complaints about Family Court practices.

Fishman requested declaratory and injunctive relief, reimbursement of legal and medical costs, compensatory damages, an order requiring accommodations, an order preventing retaliation, and a stay of state Family Court proceedings. The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss.

Reasons for dismissal

The court first held that D’Ambrosio was protected by absolute judicial immunity. Although D’Ambrosio was an Associate Court Attorney rather than a judge, the court found that Fishman’s allegations against her concerned actions taken as Judge Michelle Schauer’s court attorney and were functionally connected to the judicial process.

The court also held that the Eleventh Amendment, which generally limits lawsuits against states and state instrumentalities in federal court, barred Fishman’s damages claims against the state-related defendants in their official capacities. The court dismissed all New York Human Rights Law claims on that basis. It also concluded that Fishman had not alleged facts showing the discriminatory intent needed to overcome state immunity for his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

For the requested declaratory and injunctive relief, the court applied several limits on federal interference with state courts. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred claims that asked the federal court to review and reject adverse final state-court decisions. The court abstained, or declined to interfere, under Younger principles as to ongoing state proceedings because the Family Court and related appellate proceedings concerned the important state interest of child custody and provided an opportunity to raise federal claims. The court also applied O’Shea to reject Fishman’s request for federal oversight of the New York court system’s internal procedures, including the assignment of accommodation decisions and the conduct of individual proceedings.

Disposition

The court concluded that the claims were barred by immunity or lack of jurisdiction and that further amendment would be futile because Fishman had already amended his complaint twice. Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted both motions to dismiss, dismissed all of Fishman’s claims with prejudice, terminated the motions, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.