Rashid v. O'Neill-Levy

Background

Hamidur Rashid, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kelly O’Neill-Levy, a New York State judge. The claims concerned O’Neill-Levy’s rulings while she presided over Rashid’s contested divorce and child-custody proceeding in New York Supreme Court, New York County. Rashid alleged that she denied or delayed various requests, refused to recuse herself, prevented him from testifying at an interim parental decision-making hearing, and acted with discriminatory and retaliatory motives.

Rashid asserted due-process and equal-protection claims and alleged that O’Neill-Levy’s continued involvement would deprive him of an impartial tribunal. He requested a declaration that she had previously violated his rights, a declaration that she could not be impartial in the matrimonial proceeding, and an injunction preventing her from presiding over it.

Motion and Report and Recommendation

O’Neill-Levy moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). She raised sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, judicial immunity, abstention doctrines, and failure to state a claim. While the motion was pending, the court asked the parties to address mootness because the matrimonial proceeding had been reassigned after O’Neill-Levy’s appointment to the Appellate Division, First Department.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the motion. She concluded that the requested declaration about O’Neill-Levy’s past conduct was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that the requests for a prospective declaration and injunction were moot because O’Neill-Levy no longer presided over the matrimonial proceeding. She also recommended denying leave to amend. Because the recommended dismissal rested on jurisdictional grounds, she did not reach the argument that the complaint failed to state a claim.

District Court’s Ruling

The court first stated that Rashid had abandoned any claim for retrospective relief because his objections said he was not seeking it. Nevertheless, because Rashid was representing himself, the court addressed the claim. It agreed that his request for a declaration that O’Neill-Levy had previously violated his rights sought retrospective relief and was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court also noted that Rashid had not plausibly alleged conduct outside O’Neill-Levy’s judicial role or outside her jurisdiction, which supported judicial immunity for judicial acts.

The court separately held that Rashid’s requests for prospective relief were moot. O’Neill-Levy no longer presided over the matrimonial proceeding, which had been reassigned to another judge, so a declaration about her impartiality and an injunction preventing her from presiding would no longer provide relief in that proceeding. To the extent Rashid sought an injunction concerning possible future appeals, the court found that possibility speculative.

The court therefore dismissed all claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: the retrospective claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the prospective claims were moot. The court denied Rashid’s request for prospective relief, denied leave to amend because amendment would be futile, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, directed the Clerk to close the case, and entered judgment in favor of O’Neill-Levy.