Li v. Dillon
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-05735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Li v. Dillon, Judge Caproni dismissed Feng Li’s civil-rights complaint against four appellate justices as frivolous under judicial immunity and denied leave to amend.
Feng Li’s complaint was dismissed, he was denied leave to amend and permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, and he was warned that future duplicative or frivolous filings could require prior court permission. Mark C. Dillon, J.P. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Betsy Barros, and Paul Wooten were protected from Li’s claims by judicial immunity.
What happened
Li v. Dillon involved Feng Li’s pro se lawsuit against Mark C. Dillon, J.P. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Betsy Barros, and Paul Wooten, four New York State appellate justices. Li challenged language in their decision affirming the dismissal of an earlier lawsuit and sought court orders and attorney fees.
The court ruled that the justices were acting in their judicial roles and had authority to issue the decision and the challenged language. It therefore found that judicial immunity applied and that Li’s claims were frivolous.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the complaint, denied Li permission to amend it, and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The court also warned that further frivolous or duplicative lawsuits could lead to a filing restriction requiring Li to obtain permission before bringing another action.
The detailed version
- Li v. Dillon · No. 1:21-cv-05735
- Valerie Caproni
- July 23, 2021
Background
Feng Li filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Mark C. Dillon, J.P. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Betsy Barros, and Paul Wooten violated his constitutional rights. The defendants were identified as New York State Appellate Division justices sued in their official capacities.
Li based the lawsuit on a January 27, 2021 appellate decision affirming the dismissal of a case he had brought against former clients. Li said he was not challenging the affirmance itself, but instead challenged a statement in the appellate opinion that referred to an earlier finding about his alleged misappropriation of funds. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney fees, although the opinion states that he was representing himself.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judges generally have absolute immunity from suits for damages based on actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. It also noted that, under § 1983, injunctive relief against a judicial officer for a judicial act is generally unavailable unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
The court concluded that the defendants’ actions arose from their decision in an appeal and therefore were within their judicial capacity. It further concluded that the defendants had jurisdiction to issue both the decision and the challenged language. Because the claims were barred by judicial immunity, the court dismissed them as frivolous—meaning lacking an arguable legal or factual basis.
Disposition
The court dismissed Li’s complaint under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous. It denied leave to amend because the complaint was frivolous on its face and amendment would be futile. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The court warned that, considering Li’s litigation history and status as a suspended attorney, further duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing any new action in the court—whether without paying the filing fee or by paying it—without prior permission. The order directed the clerk to mail Li a copy and record service on the docket.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.