Summary
The Eastern District of New York dismissed Christopher Gunn’s amended pro se complaint against New York State, which alleged constitutional violations arising from a prior criminal prosecution. The court held that New York State was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that Congress had not abrogated that immunity for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case and denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal.
Holdings
- New York State is immune from plaintiff's § 1983 suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment because the State has neither waived its immunity nor had that immunity abrogated by Congress.
- The amended complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim because its sole defendant, New York State, was immune from the relief sought.
Questions Presented
- Whether New York State is subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court for the monetary relief sought by plaintiff.
- Whether the amended complaint stated a claim for relief subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (19)
- Gunn v. Stubbs, No. 25-cv-02296, 2025 WL 2403395, at *1, *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2025)(followed)
- United States v. Gunn, No. 22-cr-00314 (HG) (E.D.N.Y. 2022)(described)
- Gunn v. Olaniyan, No. 24-cv-04065, 2024 WL 3567015, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2024)(described)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007)(followed)
- Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980)(followed)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…