DeRaffele v. Unified Court System of New York

Background

Christopher DeRaffele and John DeRaffele, described as father and son, appeared without lawyers and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims against government officials for violating constitutional rights. The caption also listed C.D. and C.M., both minors, as plaintiffs. In an earlier order dated March 26, 2024, the court dismissed the original complaint but allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on April 15, 2024.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that the amended complaint had the same deficiencies as the original complaint.

- The claims against the New York State Unified Court System were barred by the state’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court also stated that any renewed claims against the Unified Court System were dismissed. - The claims against Chief Administrative Judge Joseph A. Zayas were dismissed because the amended complaint alleged no facts showing his personal involvement in any violation. Personal involvement is required for liability under Section 1983. - The claims against the Family Court of New Rochelle were dismissed because the court is part of the New York State Unified Court System and therefore has the state’s protection from suit in federal court. - Judges Melissa Loehr and Carol Ann Jordan were protected by absolute judicial immunity for actions within their judicial responsibilities. The court found that the plaintiffs’ general statements that the judges acted outside their duties or jurisdiction were insufficient, and that the alleged conduct concerned the judges’ handling of litigation before them. - The claims against Deborah Clegg, Claudette Lamelle, Guadalupe Mendoza, and Gail DeRaffele Cerreta were dismissed because the opinion treated them as private parties who could not be sued under Section 1983.

Disposition

Because the plaintiffs had already been told about the deficiencies and had been given an opportunity to amend, the court found that another amendment would be futile and declined to allow one. The court dismissed the amended complaint and stated that all claims were dismissed. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Cathy Seibel certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fees for an appeal.