Stark v. New York County Court

Background

Evette Jody Stark, appearing without a lawyer and having paid the filing fee, brought the action under the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. She filed three complaints and several supplemental affidavits. The court treated those filings together as the operative pleading.

Stark’s filings concerned alleged misconduct and violations of her rights during divorce proceedings in the New York County Supreme Court. Her allegations included claims of theft, fraud, financial abuse, harassment, forced eviction, and violations of constitutional rights. She sought injunctive relief, including prosecution of county employees, disbarment of attorneys, and an accounting of financial matters, along with monetary compensation. The initial complaint named the New York County Court and Cyrus Vance, Jr.; later filings named the New York County Court alone. Stark also moved to replace that defendant with New York County.

Claims and analysis

The court construed Stark’s claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy when a person acting under state authority deprives someone of federal rights. The court held that the New York County Supreme Court could not be sued under Section 1983 because a court is not a “person” covered by that statute. It also held that the court was part of the New York State Unified Court System and therefore protected from suit by the Eleventh Amendment. The claims against the state court were dismissed for failure to state a claim, as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and as frivolous.

The court denied Stark’s motion to substitute New York County as the sole defendant. It explained that New York County is part of New York City, so claims against the county would be treated as claims against the City. Stark’s filings did not allege that City employees or agents took the relevant actions, or that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of her federal rights. The court therefore concluded that she had not stated a claim against the City and that no purpose would be served by allowing the substitution.

Ruling

Judge Louis L. Stanton denied leave to amend because he found that the defects in Stark’s pleadings could not be cured by another amendment. The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, as barred under the Eleventh Amendment, and as frivolous. It also denied Stark’s motion to substitute New York County as the sole defendant, terminated all other pending matters, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Stark and record service on the docket. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.