Askins v. Rosado

Background

Delroy Askins, proceeding without a lawyer, invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the defendants violated his “civil rights, human rights, and ADA rights.” The defendants were Mary V. Rosado, identified as a New York State Supreme Court Justice; Aileen Gutierrez, identified as an attorney; and Lisa D’Urso, identified as a licensed social worker for Mental Hygiene Legal Services.

Askins alleged that his rights were violated during a November 18, 2020, video hearing. His allegations concerned the judge’s treatment of him, D’Urso’s evaluation and communications before the hearing, and Gutierrez’s conduct concerning his mother, Frances Askin. He sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. The court had allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Legal standards

Because Askins proceeded without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although complaints filed by people without lawyers are read liberally, they still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under the federal pleading rules.

Claims against Justice Rosado

The court held that judges have absolute immunity from damages suits for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. Acts arising from or related to cases before a judge are generally judicial acts, and allegations of bad faith or malice do not remove that immunity. The court also explained that federal civil-rights law generally bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts taken in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

The exceptions to judicial immunity are actions outside the judge’s judicial capacity or actions taken in the absence of jurisdiction. The court found that Askins had not alleged facts showing either exception. It therefore dismissed his claims against Justice Rosado because they sought monetary relief from an immune defendant and were consequently considered frivolous under the statute governing fee-free complaints.

Claims against Gutierrez and D’Urso

The court treated Askins’s civil-rights claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such a claim requires facts showing that each defendant acted under color of state law—meaning through government authority or conduct fairly attributable to the government. Private parties generally are not liable under Section 1983. The court concluded that Askins had not alleged that Gutierrez or D’Urso worked for a state or other government body, and therefore he could not state a Section 1983 claim against them.

Limits on federal interference with state proceedings

The court stated that the Younger abstention doctrine generally prevents a federal court from ordering an injunction that interferes with qualifying ongoing state proceedings. This includes certain state criminal prosecutions, civil enforcement proceedings similar to criminal prosecutions, and civil proceedings involving a state’s enforcement of its courts’ orders and judgments. Because Askins’s request for an injunction implicated how the state court carried out its judicial function and managed its proceedings, the court declined to intervene under Younger.

The court also applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine removes federal district-court jurisdiction over a case brought by someone who lost in state court, claims injury caused by the state-court judgment, asks the federal court to review and reject that judgment, and filed the federal case after the state judgment. To the extent Askins challenged a final state-court judgment and sought an order vacating it, the court held that his claim was barred.

Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, for seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from that relief, and as barred by the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the clerk to enter judgment.