Rosellini v. Lane
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-05434
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rosellini v. Lane, Judge Roman dismissed claims against a bankruptcy judge under judicial immunity and denied injunctive relief as moot.
The ruling ended Kenneth Rosellini’s claims against Sean H. Lane in this action. It protected Lane from the damages claims through judicial immunity, and the court denied Rosellini’s request for injunctive relief as moot.
What happened
In Rosellini v. Lane, Kenneth Rosellini, an attorney representing himself, sued Sean H. Lane, a bankruptcy judge, under a federal constitutional-rights theory. Rosellini alleged that Lane violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights while handling a bankruptcy proceeding and sought money and an injunction.
The court concluded that Lane’s challenged rulings and actions were part of his judicial responsibilities and within his jurisdiction. Judges generally cannot be sued for damages based on such actions, even when bad faith or improper conduct is alleged.
Judge Roman dismissed the complaint as barred by judicial immunity and as frivolous. The court also denied Rosellini’s request for injunctive relief as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Rosellini v. Lane · No. 7:20-cv-05434
- Nelson Roman
- July 21, 2020
Background
Kenneth Rosellini, an attorney appearing without a lawyer, brought the action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He alleged that Sean H. Lane, a judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights while presiding over In re Dennis Scanlon, No. 19-23120 (SHL). Rosellini alleged that Lane acted without jurisdiction, abused his authority, and engaged in conduct that served no legitimate bankruptcy purpose. He requested monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Although Rosellini paid the filing fees, the court explained that it could dismiss a complaint that was frivolous, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, or failed to state a claim. The court also noted that, because Rosellini was an attorney representing himself, he was not entitled to the special leniency generally given to self-represented litigants.
Discussion
The court applied the doctrine of judicial immunity. Judges are absolutely immune from damages suits based on actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. Acts arising from or related to individual cases before a judge generally qualify as judicial acts, and allegations of bad faith or malice do not defeat that immunity. Judicial immunity does not apply when a judge acts outside the judicial role or acts in the absence of jurisdiction, but the court must construe the judge’s jurisdiction broadly when deciding immunity.
The court found that Rosellini’s claims arose from Lane’s rulings and actions while presiding over the bankruptcy proceeding. It concluded that those actions were within Lane’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Lane under judicial immunity and as frivolous. The court also stated that a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when the defendant is immune from suit.
Disposition
Judge Roman ordered that the complaint be dismissed as barred by judicial immunity and as frivolous. The court denied Rosellini’s request for injunctive relief as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.