Walker v. Jolly

Background

Cynthia Walker proceeded without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. She brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain claims for violations of constitutional rights. She named Anne-Marie Jolly, the administrative judge of the New York City Family Court; Letitia James, the New York State Attorney General; and the Manhattan Family Court as defendants.

Walker alleged that she was prevented from filing a motion in a closed family-court proceeding. According to the complaint, the motion was rejected as repetitive, and an order entered by a Kings County Family Court judge required her to obtain the court’s permission before filing new motions. The opinion says Walker did not identify the family court where she tried to file the motion. Because she sued the Manhattan Family Court, the court assumed that she tried to file it there, while noting that the filing restriction was entered by a Kings County Family Court judge and that the attached documents concerned proceedings in Kings County Family Court.

Request for emergency relief

Walker filed an unsigned request for an order requiring Jolly and the Manhattan Family Court to immediately permit her to file the motion. The court treated this as a request for a preliminary injunction, which is an emergency order issued before the case is fully resolved. To obtain that relief, Walker had to show irreparable harm and either a likely chance of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Walker’s submissions did not make the required showing. It said her claims, which asked the federal court to review and set aside a state court’s filing restriction, were likely barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing final state-court judgments.

The court also identified additional likely obstacles. It said claims against Judge Jolly were likely barred by absolute judicial immunity, subject to the limits stated in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief against judicial officers. It said Walker likely failed to state a claim against the Manhattan Family Court because that court is not a “person” that can be sued under § 1983. The court additionally noted that the Manhattan Family Court is part of the New York State Unified Court System and is therefore protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Disposition

The court denied Walker’s request for an order to show cause. It stated that it would address the complaint’s merits later; therefore, this order did not finally resolve the underlying complaint. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Walker permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.