Tewari v. Sattler
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-08840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tewari v. Sattler, Judge Carter dismissed Tewari’s claims as barred by judicial immunity and frivolous.
The ruling dismissed Sanjay Om Tewari’s claims against Justice Lori S. Sattler and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
Sanjay Om Tewari, representing himself, sued Justice Lori S. Sattler over her actions in state-court proceedings involving Tewari, his wife, and their children. He claimed violations of several constitutional rights and sought damages and orders affecting restraining orders and contact with his children.
The court said judges are protected from damages lawsuits for actions taken as part of their judicial duties, even when a plaintiff alleges bad faith or improper conduct. Tewari challenged actions connected to cases before Justice Sattler, and he did not allege facts showing that she acted outside her judicial role or without jurisdiction. The court also explained that federal law generally limits court orders against judges for judicial acts.
The court dismissed Tewari’s claims based on Justice Sattler’s absolute judicial immunity and deemed them frivolous. The court declined to allow Tewari to amend the complaint because amendment would be futile. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Tewari v. Sattler · No. 1:22-cv-08840
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
Sanjay Om Tewari brought the action without a lawyer against Justice Lori S. Sattler of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The claims arose from Justice Sattler’s judicial actions in state-court proceedings involving Tewari, his wife, and their children. Tewari invoked the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court construed the complaint as bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims for constitutional violations by state officials.
Tewari alleged that Justice Sattler issued an ex parte temporary restraining order without evidence, prevented his attorneys from presenting exculpatory evidence at a hearing, and refused to allow transcripts of hearings that Tewari was not permitted to attend in person. He sought damages and an injunction requiring Justice Sattler to remove restraining orders and reunite him with his children.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. Acts arising from or related to individual cases before a judge are generally judicial acts, and allegations of bad faith or malice do not overcome this immunity. The protection does not apply when a judge acts outside her judicial capacity or without jurisdiction, but the court said a judge’s jurisdiction is construed broadly when immunity is at issue.
The court also noted that § 1983 generally bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. The court concluded that Tewari’s allegations concerned judicial acts in cases before Justice Sattler and that he did not allege facts showing that she acted beyond her judicial responsibilities or outside her jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court dismissed Tewari’s claims against Justice Sattler based on her absolute judicial immunity and as frivolous. It declined to grant leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.