Keten v. Lopez

Background

Hilland M. Keten appeared without a lawyer and sued Honorable Anthony Lopez and “Corporation Counsel.” He invoked the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Keten challenged the collection of child-support arrears by the New York City Office of Child Support Enforcement. He alleged that he had told Judge Lopez during child-support proceedings that the amount owed was incorrect because he was disabled. Keten further alleged that Judge Lopez stated on February 7, 2018, that the arrears would not exceed $500, but that the Enforcement Office collected approximately $15,000 within five days. He sought $777,777 in damages.

Screening Standard

Because Keten was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it had to read a filing by a person without a lawyer generously, while still requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

Civil-Rights Claims

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by state actors.

Judicial Immunity

The court dismissed the claims against Judge Lopez as frivolous under absolute judicial immunity. Judges are generally immune from damages claims based on actions taken within their judicial responsibilities, even when a plaintiff alleges bad faith or malice. The court found that Keten’s claims against Judge Lopez were based on conduct within the scope of his judicial role. The opinion also described limits on judicial immunity for actions outside a judge’s judicial capacity or taken without jurisdiction, but it found those limits did not apply here.

Government-Attorney Immunity

The court dismissed the claims against “Corporation Counsel” because the alleged conduct was within the official duties of a government attorney and was connected to the judicial process and litigation on behalf of the Enforcement Office. The court ruled that the claim sought monetary relief from a defendant protected by immunity.

Procedural Due Process

The court treated Keten’s allegation that the Enforcement Office wrongfully collected his money as a procedural due-process claim. It explained that such a claim requires a protected property interest and inadequate procedures before or after the deprivation.

The court identified New York procedures allowing a child-support debtor to challenge an alleged error in the amount owed as a “mistake of fact.” Under the procedures discussed, the debtor may submit an objection, receive an agency decision, and seek state-court review if necessary. The court held that these available post-collection remedies defeated Keten’s due-process claim, even assuming that the money was seized without advance notice or an opportunity to object. It therefore dismissed the due-process claim for failure to state a claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied Keten permission to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured through amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered that the complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.