Schoch v. Scattaretico-Naber

Background

James A. Schoch, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Judge Mary Anne Scattaretico-Naber, Shari Rackman, David Peck, and Jennifer Demers. The opinion states that Judge Scattaretico-Naber appeared to have presided over Schoch’s New York Family Court proceedings; Rackman represented the mother of Schoch’s child; Peck was appointed to represent Schoch’s child; and Demers was the child’s mother.

Schoch sought $6.8 million in compensatory damages and $3.2 million in punitive damages. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. He alleged problems involving custody proceedings, delays, supervised visits, protection orders, firearm restrictions, alleged hearsay and false accusations, and the handling of investigations. He also cited state attorney-conduct rules and appeared possibly to assert state-law claims.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed any claims Schoch was bringing on behalf of his child, Demers, McAllister, or other people. Because Schoch did not allege that he was an attorney, the court held that he could not represent other people in federal court.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Judge Scattaretico-Naber. It held that judges are generally immune from damages claims for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. The court concluded that the claims arose from the judge’s rulings and decisions in the Family Court proceedings, which were within her authority. It dismissed those claims under judicial immunity and as frivolous.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claims against Rackman, Peck, and Demers for failure to state a claim. It explained that § 1983 generally requires both a violation of a federal right and action under state authority. The court found that Schoch had not alleged facts showing that these defendants acted as state actors. It granted leave to amend those claims if Schoch could, in good faith, allege facts showing that the defendants acted under state authority while violating his federal rights.

As to possible state-law claims, the court dismissed them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the rules governing diversity jurisdiction. Schoch did not adequately allege the citizenship of all defendants or facts showing that the state-law claims exceeded $75,000. The court granted leave to replead those claims if he could provide the required jurisdictional facts. Alternatively, because the federal claims had been dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed the action but granted Schoch 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to identify the specific conduct, responsible defendant, and right allegedly violated, and provide factual support rather than only conclusions. If Schoch did not amend within the allowed time, the Clerk would be directed to enter a judgment dismissing the action as described in the order.

The court denied Defendants’ requests, identified as ECF Nos. 6 and 8, as moot, while allowing them to renew those requests after an amended complaint if appropriate. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.