Davis et al v. Hudson et al
| Stanley Davis, Sabrina Brooks, Shabria Davis and Shatorra Davis |
| Hon: Jame C Hudson, Brian O'Keefe, Suffolk County District Attorney Office, Suffolk County 4th precinct Department, The County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Police Department, Suffolk Detectives Alfred Ciccotto and Sgt. William Lamb |
| 2:2022cv06472 |
| October 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Joan M Azrack |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Anne Y Shields |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Gary R. Brown recused. Case reassigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen for all further proceedings. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 12/15/2022. (GO)
|
|
ORDER: Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence this action, should he seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the December 13, 2022 Electronic Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis (IFP) status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 12/14/2022. (MR)
|
| Case reopened as Directed by GRB Chambers. (GO) |
|
ORDER: A review of the amended complaint reveals the allegations fail to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint purports to assert claims against a state court judge, the judges law clerk, Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Police Department, a detective in the SCPD, and a sergeant in the SCPD. The Suffolk County Police Department is not an entity that is amenable to suit. Robischung-Walsh v. Nassau Cnty. Police Dep't, 699 F. Supp. 2d 563, 565 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 421 F. App'x 38 (2d Cir. 2011) ([U]nder New York law, departments that are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and, therefore, cannot sue or be sued.). The claims against Suffolk County fail as there is no vicarious liability under 1983 and the complaint fails to properly assert a Monell violation beyond mere threadbare allegations. See Baity v. Kralik, 51 F. Supp. 3d 414, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (it is [only] when execution of a government's policy or custom... inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under 1983.imposition of vicarious liability is incompatible with 1983's causation requirement.) (citations omitted). Further, the conspiracy claim against the officers is subject to dismissal as it is premised upon wholly conclusory allegations and runs afoul of the intra-agency conspiracy doctrine. See Vega v. Artus, 610 F. Supp. 2d 185, 205 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding conspiracy claims are to be viewed with skepticism and must be supported by more than mere conclusory allegations and officers, agents or employees of a single corporate entity are legally incapable of conspiring together.). Assuming the complaint stated a plausible claim, which it does not, dismissal as to the judge and his law clerk is nonetheless compelled by principles of judicial immunity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) ([J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages.). This immunity encompasses court staff and chambers staff. Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653, 660 (2d Cir. 1995) (Because absolute immunity is essential to safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process, it extends to those performing functions closely associated with that processThis includes not only officials performing discretionary acts of a judicial nature but also individual employees who assist such an official and who act under that official's direction in performing functions closely tied to the judicial process.); Jackson v. Pfau, 523 F. App'x 736, 73738 (2d Cir. 2013) (extending judicial immunity to various chambers and court employees, including law clerks and court clerks, where the claims concerned actions that were judicial in nature or closely related to the judicial process.) As such, the amended complaint is dismissed sua sponte with prejudice.The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to pro se plaintiff and to close the case. Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 12/13/2022. (MR)
|
| Filing 10 Letter from Stanley Davis to Judges dtd 11/30/2022 regarding case with attached affidavits of service. (JC) |
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Shabria Davis, Sabrina Brooks, Shatorra Davis, Stanley Davis. Alfred Ciccotto served on 11/19/2022, answer due 12/10/2022; Jame C Hudson served on 11/19/2022, answer due 12/10/2022; William Lamb served on 11/19/2022, answer due 12/10/2022; Brian O'Keefe served on 11/19/2022, answer due 12/10/2022; The County of Suffolk (SUFFOLK COUNTY AG) served on 11/19/2022, answer due 12/10/2022. (GO) |
| Filing 8 Letter by all State defendants seeking permission to move to dismiss the Amended Complaint by Jame C Hudson (Connolly, Susan) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Susan M. Connolly on behalf of Jame C Hudson (aty to be noticed) (Connolly, Susan) |
| Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Jame C Hudson, Brian O'Keefe, The County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Police Department, Alfred Ciccotto, William Lamb, filed by Shabria Davis, Sabrina Brooks, Shatorra Davis, Stanley Davis. (GO) |
|
ORDER DISMISSING CASE.A review of the complaint reveals no allegations stating a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. Assuming the complaint stated a plausible claim, which it does not, dismissal is nonetheless compelled by principles of judicial and prosecutorial immunity. The complaint purports to assert claims against a state court judge, the judges law clerk, the district attorney, and the Suffolk County Police Department. To the extent these claims are asserted against the individual defendants in their personal capacities, such claims are dismissed under the doctrines of judicial and prosecutorial immunity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) ([J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages.). This immunity encompasses court staff and chambers staff. Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653, 660 (2d Cir. 1995) (Because absolute immunity is essential to safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process, it extends to those performing functions closely associated with that processThis includes not only officials performing discretionary acts of a judicial nature but also individual employees who assist such an official and who act under that official's direction in performing functions closely tied to the judicial process.); Jackson v. Pfau, 523 F. App'x 736, 73738 (2d Cir. 2013) (extending judicial immunity to various chambers and court employees, including law clerks and court clerks, where the claims concerned actions that were judicial in nature or closely related to the judicial process.). Similarly, a prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from 1983 suits for damages when he acts within the scope of his prosecutorial duties. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976). Further, the Suffolk County Police Department is not an entity that is amenable to suit. Robischung-Walsh v. Nassau Cnty. Police Dep't, 699 F. Supp. 2d 563, 565 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 421 F. App'x 38 (2d Cir. 2011) ([U]nder New York law, departments that are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and, therefore, cannot sue or be sued.). As such, the complaint is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall have 10 days to refile an amended complaint. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiffs at their addresses of record.Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 11/2/2022. (MR)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Joan M. Azrack recused. Case reassigned to Judge Gary R. Brown for all further proceedings. The undersigned hereby recuses herself from this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 (a) and it is requested that the Clerk of the Court reassign this matter to a selected District Judge. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 10/27/2022. c/m to pro se plaintiff (LC)
|
| Filing 4 Notice of Related Cases: 15-cv-7009-JFB-ARL, 18-cv-303-JMA-AYS, 21-cv-456-JMA, 21-cv-2338-JMA-ARL, 22-cv-6207-JMA-AYS and 22-cv-6438-GRB-AYS The Civil Cover Sheet filed in this civil action indicates a related case. (DC) (Main Document 4 replaced on 10/28/2022) (DC). Modified to correct related case number on 10/28/2022 (DC). |
| Filing 3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (DC) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (DC) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Shabria Davis, Sabrina Brooks, Shatorra Davis, Stanley Davis. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (DC) |
| FILING FEE: $ 402.00, receipt number 200000529 (DC) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
