Nunez v. Silber

Background

Javier Nunez, appearing without a lawyer, sued Mark Silber, Eli Sibler, Nicole Fraser, and Gutman, Minte, Baker & Sonnenfeldt LLC. He invoked diversity jurisdiction and asserted claims arising from the termination of a lease for a Manhattan apartment from which he had been evicted. He sought a lease to the apartment and at least $75,000 in damages. He also asserted that Nicole Fraser failed to provide services to his father, Luis Santiago, and alleged violations of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The opinion describes two earlier related federal proceedings involving substantially the same claims and defendants. Those cases were dismissed, including because of jurisdictional problems and because Nunez could not bring claims on behalf of his father. In the current case, Nunez stated that he was then a citizen of Pennsylvania, whereas the opinion states that he had previously been a citizen of New York.

Rooker-Feldman Ruling

The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This doctrine prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court for a final state-court judgment. Nunez had lost in the Housing Court eviction proceedings, complained of harm connected to that judgment, and sought relief that would effectively require the federal court to overturn the eviction decision and require the landlord to give him a lease.

The court therefore held that all claims concerning the lease and the requested relief overturning the Housing Court eviction proceeding were barred for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed those claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Claims Asserted on Behalf of Nunez’s Father

The court separately dismissed without prejudice the claims Nunez asserted against Fraser on behalf of his father. The court explained that Nunez was not an attorney and therefore could not represent his father in court. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself did not bar refiling those claims in a proper case, although the opinion does not decide whether any such claim would otherwise be legally sufficient.

Warning and Disposition

The court warned Nunez that if he continued filing complaints found to be duplicative, frivolous, or otherwise lacking merit, it could require him to explain why he should not be barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing new actions without prepayment of fees unless he first received permission. The court dismissed the complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, terminated all other pending matters, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Nunez permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.