Humphrey v. New York

Second Circuit

Humphrey v. New York

108 F. App'x 691

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 2004

DocketNo. 04-1247-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 F. App'x 691 (Humphrey v. New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Humphrey v. New York, 108 F. App'x 691 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant John Jay Humphrey, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The parties’ familiarity with the facts is assumed.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 343 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir. 2003).

For the reasons stated in the district court’s order, Humphrey’s claims, made against the State of New York as the sole defendant, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir.2002). Furthermore, to the extent that Humphrey’s complaint can be construed as alleging claims against named state judges and courts, or the “OCSD,” it was still properly dismissed. All of those claims were fatally conclusory, even after amendment was permitted. See Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996). Moreover, judges are entitled to judicial immunity from damages for actions committed in their judicial capacity, see Fields v. Soloff, 920 F.2d 1114, 1119 (2d Cir.1990), and Eleventh Amendment immunity protects state agencies, including state courts, Richards v. State of New York, 597 F.Supp. 692, 693 (E.D.N.Y.1984), aff'd, 767 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1985) (table).

For the reasons set forth, we AFFIRM the order of the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant John Jay Humphrey, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The parties’ familiarity with the facts is assumed.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 343 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir. 2003).

For the reasons stated in the district court’s order, Humphrey’s claims, made against the State of New York as the sole defendant, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir.2002). Furthermore, to the extent that Humphrey’s complaint can be construed as alleging claims against named state judges and courts, or the “OCSD,” it was still properly dismissed. All of those claims were fatally conclusory, even after amendment was permitted. See Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996). Moreover, judges are entitled to judicial immunity from damages for actions committed in their judicial capacity, see Fields v. Soloff, 920 F.2d 1114, 1119 (2d Cir.1990), and Eleventh Amendment immunity protects state agencies, including state courts, Richards v. State of New York, 597 F.Supp. 692, 693 (E.D.N.Y.1984), aff'd, 767 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1985) (table).

For the reasons set forth, we AFFIRM the order of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F. App'x 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-new-york-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack