Seelig v. The State of New York

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 1, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-11046
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARLES SEELIG, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-11046 (CM) THE STATE OF NEW YORK; AND THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL CITY OF NEW YORK HOUSING COURT ADMINISTRATION, Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action alleging that his rights were violated by an order issued in the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Housing Court). By order dated March 26, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is

entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Charles Seelig brings this complaint alleging that his rights were violated in Housing Court. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. On November 4, 2020, a virtual hearing was held in 13 East 9th Street, L.L.C. v. Seelig, L & T No. 50014/2000. Plaintiff was unable to attend and was therefore unaware that a stipulation of settlement was entered that settled Plaintiff’s claim against the landlord. Plaintiff asserts that he was represented by counsel, but that he did not give counsel authority to settle his claim. Plaintiff fired his counsel and filed an order to show cause to vacate the stipulation. Plaintiff alleges that another virtual hearing was held, and a court reporter was not present. Plaintiff brings this action seeking injunctive relief. He seeks an order from this Court vacating the stipulation of settlement and preventing the Housing Court from holding virtual hearings. DISCUSSION Because Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated, the Court construes

Plaintiff’s claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A. Eleventh Amendment Plaintiff’s claims against the State of New York and the City of New York Housing Court Administration must be dismissed. “[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . .” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment

extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Id. The Housing Court of the City of New York is part of the New York State Unified Court System and “is unquestionably an ‘arm of the State.’ Id. at 368 (explaining that Family Court is part of the New York State Unified Court System and thus “ is unquestionably an ‘ arm of the State,’ entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.”); see also Pantoja v. Scott, No. 96-CV-8593 (AJP), 2001 WL 1313358, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2001) (“[T]he New York City Housing Court is a State not City entity.”). New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York and the City of New York Housing Court Administration are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed. B. Pending Proceedings in Housing Court To the extent that Plaintiff, in seeking injunctive relief, asks this Court to intervene in

proceedings pending in Housing Court, the Court must dismiss those claims. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that a federal court may not enjoin a pending state-court criminal proceeding in the absence of special circumstances suggesting bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury that is both serious and immediate. See Heicklen v. Morgenthau, 378 F. App’ x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1973)). This doctrine has been extended to civil actions. See Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 2006); Diamond “D” Const. Corp. v. McGowan, 282 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Younger generally requires federal courts to abstain from taking jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims that involve or call into question ongoing state proceedings.”). Younger abstention seeks to avoid federal court interference with ongoing state criminal

prosecutions, state-initiated civil enforcement proceedings, and state civil proceedings that involve the ability of state courts to perform their judicial functions. Jones v. Cnty. of Westchester, 678 F. App’x 48, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order). Thus, abstention is appropriate in only three categories of state court proceedings: (1) state criminal prosecutions; (2) civil enforcement proceedings that are “akin to criminal prosecutions”; and (3) civil proceedings “that implicate a State’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588 (2013). If a “federal lawsuit implicates the way that New York courts manage their own . . . proceedings — a subject in which ‘the states have an especially strong interest’ — a State’s interest is most likely implicated, warranting abstention under Younger. Falco v. Justices of the Matrimonial Parts of Supreme Court of Suffolk Cnty., 805 F.3d 425, 427 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v. Rosenstiel, 490 F.2d 509, 516 (2d Cir. 1973)).

When any of these types of proceedings are pending in state court, the Younger doctrine bars federal courts from ordering injunctive relief that interferes with the state court proceedings. “State proceedings are pending for Younger purposes until all appellate court remedies have been exhausted.” People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, 108 F. Supp. 2d 275, 290 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Plaintiff’s request that this Court vacate the stipulation of settlement entered in Housing Court and prevent the Housing Court from holding virtual hearings implicates how the state court performs it judicial function and manages its proceedings. Younger abstention therefore applies, and this Court refrains from exercising jurisdiction over this action and will not intervene in those proceedings. Falco, 805 F.3d at 428.

C. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Moreover, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review cases “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine – named for Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983) – applies where the federal-court plaintiff: (1) lost in state court, (2) complains of injuries caused by the state-court judgment, (3) invites the district court to review and reject the state court judgment, and (4) commenced the district court proceedings after the state-court judgment was rendered. Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423, 426 (2d Cir. 2014). Here, Plaintiff challenges the Housing Court settlement and seeks an order from this Court vacating a state-court order. Thus, Plaintiffs claim is for injuries “caused by the state- court judgment[s].” Exxon, 544 U.S. at 284. As Plaintiff cannot ask this Court to review and reject state-court decisions, his claim for relief is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff's complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed as barred by the doctrines of Eleventh Amendment immunity, Younger abstention, and Rooker-Feldman. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2021 New York, New York hie. Iu Wyk Chief United States District Judge