Masri v. Liebowitz

Background

Joseph H. Masri filed the action without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He sued Support Magistrate Barbara O. Afriyie, Family Court Judge Christine P. Krahulik, New York Supreme Court Justice Catherine M. Bartlett, attorneys, private individuals, and unidentified defendants. The complaint asserted claims under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), and state law. Masri sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that some defendants manipulated or mishandled family-court and state-court proceedings; that several defendants were involved in an alleged murder plot or threats against him; that attorneys and judges failed to address those threats; and that one attorney publicly made statements about Masri. The court described the complaint as difficult to understand and noted that Masri provided no facts about some defendants.

Federal Claims Against Judges

The court dismissed Masri’s claims for damages and injunctive relief against Afriyie, Krahulik, and Bartlett in their individual capacities. It held that judicial immunity protects judges from damages claims based on acts taken within their judicial responsibilities. Masri did not allege facts showing that these defendants acted outside their judicial roles or without jurisdiction. The court also concluded that Section 1983 barred the requested injunctive relief because declaratory relief was available through state-court review.

The court dismissed damages claims against the judges in their official capacities under the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state officials sued in their official roles from such claims. It also dismissed retrospective injunctive and declaratory claims against them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court further dismissed claims seeking to interfere with ongoing New York child-custody, child-support, or divorce proceedings under the rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. Masri did not allege the required facts showing bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. To the extent he sought to overturn final state-court decisions, the court dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the rule barring federal district-court review of final state-court judgments.

Civil Racketeering Claims

The court dismissed Masri’s civil racketeering claims. It held that the complaint did not provide facts supporting either a civil racketeering claim or a racketeering conspiracy claim. The allegations were conclusory and did not adequately allege the required pattern of qualifying acts, enterprise, effect on interstate or foreign commerce, agreement, or injury to business or property.

The court separately dismissed the civil racketeering claims against Avrum as filed in the wrong federal district because Masri alleged that Avrum resided in Brooklyn, which is within the Eastern District of New York.

Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 provides a claim for constitutional violations by a person acting under state authority. The court dismissed Masri’s Section 1983 claims against the private defendants because he did not allege facts showing that they acted under state authority. The court explained that an attorney’s representation of a client, including court-appointed representation, generally does not by itself constitute state action.

The court also dismissed Masri’s Section 1983 conspiracy claims. It found that he alleged no specific facts showing an agreement to violate his constitutional rights, coordinated action, or an act taken to further such an agreement. The claims against the judicial defendants were dismissed for the separate reasons discussed above.

Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)

The court dismissed Masri’s claims under Section 1985(3), which concerns conspiracies to deprive a person of equal protection or equal legal rights. The court found that the allegations were vague and conclusory and did not support a conspiracy, an overt act, an injury, or the required racial or other class-based discriminatory motive.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

The court dismissed any state-law claims asserted under diversity jurisdiction because Masri did not state his citizenship when he filed the action, did not show that he and the defendants were citizens of different states, and did not allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

The court granted Masri 30 days to file an amended complaint asserting state-law claims and alleging facts showing diversity jurisdiction. The required allegations include his citizenship when the original complaint was filed, facts showing that he and the defendants named in the amended complaint were citizens of different states, and facts showing that the state-law claims exceed $75,000. The court stated that it offered no opinion on the merits of any non-frivolous state-law claims against defendants who were not immune.

Disposition

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action and granted Masri 30 days’ leave to replead his claims in an amended complaint as specified in the order. If he did not timely amend, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Masri permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.