Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Raymond L. Ortiz’s pro se complaint against a Suffolk County Family Court support magistrate. The court held that the defendant’s alleged acts were judicial acts performed within judicial proceedings and were therefore protected by absolute judicial immunity. The court granted in forma pauperis status for purposes of the order, dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), and denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal.
Holdings
- A support magistrate is absolutely immune from a damages action arising from official acts performed in a judicial capacity, absent allegations that the acts were nonjudicial or taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Ortiz's allegations concerned judicial acts performed in Family Court proceedings, so the claim was barred by judicial immunity.
- The complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because its only defendant was immune from suit for the monetary relief sought.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint seeking monetary compensation from a support magistrate for acts taken in Family Court proceedings must be dismissed because the defendant is protected by absolute judicial immunity.
- Whether the action should be dismissed during in forma pauperis screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (8)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 191–93 (2d Cir. 2008)(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)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–13 (1991)(followed)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988)(followed)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…