Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XIU JIAN SUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark C. DILLON, Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Sheri S. Roman, Colleen Duffy, Defendants-Appellees.
    16-3557-cv
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    November 1, 2017
    FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Xiu Jian Sun, pro se, Flushing, N.Y.
    FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES; Oren L. Zeve, Esq., New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, N.Y.
    PRESENT: Jon 0. Newman, José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judges, Robert N. Chatigny, District Judge.
    
      
       Judge Robert N. Chatigny, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Xiu Jian Sun, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint, in which he sued four state judges who presided over his two state court appeals. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

District courts have an inherent authority to dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee. Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000). A claim is frivolous if it presents an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or “factual contentions [that] are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Although we have not decided whether such a dismissal is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion, the district court’s grounds for dismissing Sun’s complaint “easily pass [] muster” under de novo review. See Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 364 n.2.

The district court properly dismissed Sun’s complaint as frivolous, because the complaint contained no allegations against any defendant. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because none of Sun’s filings (including his brief on appeal) give “any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if Sun were given leave to amend to allege a plausible claim, his suit would still be frivolous because the judges would be absolutely immune from money damages for any actions taken in their judicial capacities. See Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827.

As this is Plaintiffs third frivolous action and second frivolous appeal, see No. 16-3103, and he has been warned that if he continues to file similar actions, he might be subject to filing restrictions, Sun is hereby ORDERED to show cause within 30 days why he should not be required to seek leave of this Court before filing any appeals or other documents. Failure to file a timely response will result in the imposition of a leave-to-file-sanction.

We have considered Sun’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.