08 -4 58 6- cv

Mc Ke own v . Th e S tat e o f N ewY or k 

### UNITE D STA TES COU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY O RDE R

RU LINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED A ND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDE R” ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sec ond Circuit, hel d at the 2 Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Stre et, in the City of New York, 3 on the 18 day of May, two thousand ten. th 4 5 PRESENT : 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR ., 7 CHESTER J. STRAUB , 8 DEBRAANN LIVING STON, 9 Ci rcu it J ud ges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 Kevin McKeown, 13 Plaintif f-Counter-Clai mant-Appellant , 14 15 v. No . 0 8-4 58 6-c v 16 17 18 Th e N .Y . S tat e C om m iss ion on Ju dic ial Co nd

uc t, T he N. Y. S. 1s t 19 De pt. De partm ental Di sci pli nary C om m itt ee, Gary L . C ase lla , F ran cis 20 A. Nicolai, Anthony Scarpi no, Robert A. Korren, Jeffrey A. 21 McN am ara , P atr ici a B av e-P lan ell , G iul ini & G iul ini , E sq s. , C harle s 22 A. Giulini, Christ ine Giulini , Catherine M. M iklits ch, Michael D. 23 McQ ua de , 24 De fen da nts -A

pp ellees , 25 26 The State of New York, The Off ice of Court Administration of the 27 Un if

ied Co urt Sy ste m , T ho m as J . C ah ill , S he rryCo he n, Nanc y J

. 28 Barry , J os ep h A cce tta , R ob ert M. Di Be lla , M cQ ua de & Mc Qu ad e, 29 Esqs., Joseph F. McQuade, John Does 1-20, J ane Does 1-20, 30 De fen da nts -C

ou nte r-D efe nd

an ts- Ap pe lle es. 31

_____________________________________2 1 2 Kevin McKeown, pro s e , New York, NY, for Plainti ff -Appellant . 3 4 Andrew M. Cuom o, Attorney General of the State of New York; Barbara D. 5 Un de rw oo d, So lic itor Ge ne ral ; Mi ch ael S. Be loh lav ek , S en ior Co un sel ; 6 Patrick J. Walsh, Assistant Sol icitorGeneral; New York, NY, for theNe w 7 Yo rk S tate D efe nd

an ts . 8 Ap pe al f

rom a judg m ent of

the Unit ed

Stat es D ist

ric t Co urt for the So uth ern

Dis tri ct o f N ew 9 York (Scheindli n, J .). 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERA TIO N, I T IS HEREBYORDERED , ADJUDGED , AND 11 DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED

. 12 Appellant Kevin McKeown, proceeding pro s e , a pp eal s th e d istric t co urt ’s d ism iss al o f h is 13 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. W e assume the parties ’ familiarit y with the underl ying facts, the 14 pro ced

ura l hi sto ry o f t

he cas e, an d th e is su es o n a pp eal

. 15 Th is C ourt r ev iew s deno vo a d ist ric t co urt ’s d ism iss al o f a co m pla int pursuant to F ed era l 16 Rul e of Civi l Procedure 12( b)(6). Ch am be rs v . T im e Wa rn er, Inc

. , 2 82 F. 3d 14 7, 15 2 (2 d C ir. 17 2002). A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relie f that is plaus ible on it s face.” 18 Bell Atl. Corp. v . T wo mb ly , 1 27 S. Ct . 1 95 5, 19 74 (20 07 ). Acla im wi ll h av e f

aci al p lau sib ili ty 19 “whe n th e pla int if f p lea ds fa ctu al c ontent th at a llo ws the co urt to d rawthe rea so na

ble inf ere nc e th at 20 the def

en dant is liab le f

or th e m isc on du ct a lle ge d. ” Ashcroft v. I qbal , 1 29 S. Ct . 1 93 7, 19 49 (20 09 ). 21 In t

he cas e o f a pro s ecomplaint, a court must construe the complaint li berally, seeHa rri s v. Mil ls , 22 57 2 F .3 d 6 6, 72 (2d Ci r. 2009), an d s ho uld

not dism iss it w ith out gr antin g th e p lai nti ff leave to 23 am en d “ at l eas t on ce whe n a lib era l re ad ingof

the co m pla int g ive s any ind icatio n that a va lid cla im 24 m ight be s tat ed .” Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 1 71 F. 3d79 4, 79 5 ( 2dCi r. 19 99 ) ( pe r c ur ia m) 25 (quoting Bran um v. Cl ar k, 9 27 F. 2d

69 8, 70 5 (2 d C ir. 19 91 )) ( int ern al q uo tat ion m ark om itt ed ) .3 1 Un de r th e E lev enth Am en dm ent, “ [a ] s uit ge ne ral ly m ayno t b e m aintai ne d d ire ctl y a ga ins t 2 the St ate its elf

, or against anag en cyor d ep artm ent of the St ate , unle ss t

he St ate ha s w aiv ed

its 3 sovereign i mm

unity.” Fla. De

p' t of Sta te v . T reasu re S alv or s, Inc

. , 4 58 U. S. 67 0, 68 4 (1 98 2); see 4 als o Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). In thi s case, Appella nt 5 seeks relief against, among others, New Y ork State, the Of fice of Court Adm inistr at io n o f the 6 Un if

ied Co urt Sy ste m of Ne w Yo rk (“O CA ”), th e De partm ental D isc ipl inary Co mm itt ee of th e N ew 7 Yo rk Ap pe llate Di vis ion , Fi rst D ep artm ent ( “D DC ”), th e Ne w Yo rk St ate Grie vance Comm itt ee, 8 Ni nth Judicia l D istric t (“ SG C” ), and the Ne w Y ork

St ate Co mm iss ion

on Ju dic ial Co nd

uc t 9 (“S CJ C” ), b ased on the dec isi on s o f t he latter thr ee t o d ism iss his co m

pla int s. Ho we ve r, b eca

us e 10 he ha s o ff

ere d n o ev ide nc e that the Stat e has con sented to be su bje ct to suit

in thi s context, or

that 11 the St ate ' s im

m un ityfro m

su it h as b een

oth erw ise ab rog ate d, the cla im s ag ain st t he St ate are barre d 12 by the Eleventh Amendm ent. The distr ict courtalso corr ectly found that the OCA , DD C, SG C, and 13 SCJC are arms of the St ate of New York. Se eN. Y. Co ns t. art. 6, § 1 (cr eat ingthe un if ied co urt 14 s y s te m ); In re Depos it I ns . A ge nc y , 482 F.3d 612, 617 (2d Cir. 2007) (not ing that “a rm[ s] of the 15 St ate ” ar e im

m un ize d fr om

suit (int ern al qu otatio n m ark s om itt ed )). Ac co rdi ng ly, the di str ict co urt 16 properly di smissed Appellant's claims against the State, OCA, DDC, SG C, and SCJC. 17 W ithres pe ct t o App ell ant’s argum ent th at Ex parte Young , 2 09 U. S. 12 3 (1 90 8), pe rm its his

su it, the dis tri ct c ourt pro pe rlyno ted that a s tat e o ff

ici al a cti ngin h is o r he r of fi cia l ca pa city m ay 18 19 be sued only for prospective injunctive relief from ongoing violations of federal law. Se e E x p ar te 20 Young , 209 U.S. at 155-56. The Appella nt’s complaint seeks the appointment of a federal monitor 21 to oversee t he day-to-da y operations of the DDC and SCJC for an indefinite period of tim e. To the 22 ex tent th is r eli ef

is s ou ght ba sed

on the dism iss al of

the App ell ant’s atto rne y g rie vanc e co m pla int s4 1 against Jo se ph McQuade and ot hers, however, the re is no ongoing vi olation of federal l aw. 2 Al tho ug h App ell ant al so all eg es o ng oin g m isc on du ct at the D DC and

the othe r dis cip lin ary

entit ies , 3 m ore ov er, his cla im still fails wi th r eg ard

to t he se a lle gatio ns be cau se h e la ck s a c og niz ab le l eg al 4 interes t in the di sciplina ry proceedi ngs. See Applicati on of Phill ips , 5 10 F. 2d 12 6, 12 6 (2 d C ir. 5 19 75 ) (p er c uri am ). 6 To the e xt ent that Appel lant’s c omplaint effectively asked the distri ct court t o review the 7 de cis ion s o f t

he Ne w Y ork

co urt s, the co m

pla int wa s p rop erl y d ism iss ed

be cau se l ow er f

ed era l 8 co urt s lac k su

bje ct m att er jur isd ict ion

in “ cas es bro ug ht b y s tat e-c ourt l os ers co m pla ini ngof

inj uri es 9 caused by stat e-court j udgments rendered before the di strictcourtproceedings c omm enced and 10 inv iti ngdis tri ct c ou rt rev iewan d re

jec tio n o f t

ho se j ud gm ents. ” Ex

xo n Mo bil

Co rp . v . S

au di B as ic 11 Indus. Corp. , 5 44 U. S. 28 0, 28 4 (2 00 5). W e h av e specifically d ete rm ine d th at f ed era l co urt s ar e 12 pre clu de d b y th e Rooker-Feldman doctrine from reviewing a claim attacking a stat e court’s decision 13 regarding the discipl ine of an attorne y. See Zimmerman v. Grievance Comm. of the Fifth Judicial 14 Di

st. , 726 F.2d 85, 86 (2d Cir. 198 4) ( “T he d eci sion in Feldman cle arl y a pp lie s to fe de ral dis tri ct

co urt ch all en ge s to att orn eydis cip lin ary ord ers ren de red

bystate c ourts in j ud ici al p roc eed ing s. ”). 15 16 Appellant’s const itutiona l claims effectively requi re revie w of state court dec isions re garding the 17 dis cip lin e o f M cQ ua de an d F rank S tre ng ; th ere fo re, th e dis tri ct c ourt c orr ect ly d ete rm ine d th at i t di d 18 not have subjec t matter juris diction overthese cla ims. 19 It i s w ell settle d that “ jud ge s g en era llyhave ab so lut e im m un ityfr om

su its fo r m on ey 20 da mage s fo r the irju di ci al ac ti on s” an d tha t “e ve n al le ga ti on s of ba d fai tho r ma li ce cann otov er co me 21 jud ici al i mm

un ity .” Bliven v. Hunt , 57 9 F. 3d 2 04 , 20 9 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 9). Ju dic ial imm un itypro tec ts 22 the actorunless he “ac ted in the c lear abse nce of all juri sdiction.” T ucker v. Out

wa ter , 118 F.3d5 1 93 0, 93 3 (2 d C ir. 19 97 ) (i nte rna l qu otatio n m ark s and e m ph asi s o m itt ed ). A s a g en era l m att er, 2 judges are notabsolutel y imm une from suits for prospective i njunctive reli ef. Mireles v. Wac o , 502 3 U.S. 9, 10 n.1 (1991) (per cur iam). Section 1983 provides, howev er , th at “ in any acti on brought 4 against a j udicial officer for an a ct or omission taken i n such officer’ s judicia l capacity, injuncti ve 5 rel ief

sh all no t be grante d unle ss a d ecl arator y d ecr ee w as v iol ate d o r de clarat ory rel ief wa s 6 un av ail ab le. ” 7 He re, Ap pe llant’ s cl aim s ag ainst Ju dg e S car pin o w ere pro pe rlydis m iss ed be cau se t

ho se 8 cla im s invo lve d S car pin o’s pe rf

orm an c e o f

h is ju d ic ia l f

un c ti o n . Sp eci fi cal ly, Ap pe llant a lle ge s th at 9 Sc arp ino fa ile d to rep ort the m isc on du ct of

atto rne ys app ear ingin pro bate pr oc eed ing s b ef ore him 10 an d w as b ias ed

in f av or o f t ho se atto rne ys durin g th os e p roc eedings – a cti on s an d o m iss ion s th at 11 we re c learlytak enwh ile Sc arp ino wa s ac tin g in his jud ici al r ole in t

he pro bate p roc eedi ng s. 12 Ac co rdi ng ly, Ap pe lla nt’ s cl aim s for money dam ages againstScarpino are ba rre d b y a bs olu te j ud ici al 13 imm

unity from suit. To the exten t th atAppe llant se eks injunct ive reli ef against Judge Scarpino, 14 m ore ov er, Ap pe llant d oe s n ot a lle ge that a d ecl arator y d ecr ee wa s vio lat ed

o r t hat d ecl arator

y re lie f 15 wa s unava ila

ble , and so § 1 98 3 re lie f i s n ot ava ila ble

. 16 Ju dic ial imm un ityals o e xte nd s to “ce rta in o the rs who pe rf orm f un cti on s clo sel y a sso ciated 17 wi th t

he jud ici al p roc ess .” Ol iva v. He lle r , 839 F.2d 37, 39 (2d C ir. 1988) (quoting Clea vinge r v. 18 Sa

xn er , 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985)) (internal quot ation marks omitted). To det ermine which persons 19 are covere d under quasi- judicial imm

unity, “the Supr eme Court follows a ‘“functional” approach,’ 20 under which ‘[a]bsolute imm unity flows not from

rank or ti tle or “l ocation withi n the Government,” 21 but f

rom the natur e o f t

he res po ns ibi lit ies of

the ind ivi du al o ff

ice r.’ ” Id. (alter ati on

in o rig ina l) 22 (quoting Clea vinge r , 4 74 U. S. at 2 01 ). P ros ecutor s, he ari ngex am ine rs, an d law c ler ks are eli gib le6 1 for absolute immunity, and those involvedi n pr eparing and adj udicating a ttorney di scipline 2 proceedings s hare analogous roles. See id. at 3 9-4 0; see also Anonymous v. Ass’n of the Bar of N.Y. , 3 51 5 F .2 d 4 27, 433 (2 d C ir. 19 75 ) (o bs erv ingthat N ewYo rk S tat e co urt s re gard d isc ipl inary 4 pro cee din gs as “

jud ici al p roc eed ing [s ]” an d de ter m ini ngth at the s tat e bar a sso ciatio n’s gri ev an ce 5 comm ittee a cted as a quas i-judic ial body and an arm of the Appellat e Division). Accor dingly, the 6 decisions of the OCA attorneys notto initi ate disci plinary pr oceedings agai nst McQuade and Str eng 7 are prot ect ed

by th e d oc tri ne of

qu asi -ju dic ial imm

un ity , and Ap pe llant’ s cl aim s ag ain st t he m m us t 8 fail. 9 Ap pe llant h as a bandoned on

ap pe al h is § 19 83 cla im s ag ain st tho se o f t he De fe nd ants10 Appellees who are attorneys in priva te pract ice, as well as his sta te law clai ms. Se e L oS ac co v. Ci ty 11 of Middle town , 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 ( 2d Cir. 1995) (holdi ng, in civil appeal filed by pro s e ap pe llant, 12 that iss ues not rai sed in an appel late bri ef are abandoned). We therefore do not addr ess them. 13 W e h av e co ns ide red all of Ap pe llant’ s ar gum ents and fi nd the m to be without m eri t. 14 Ac co rdi ng ly, we AF FI RM the jud gm ent of the dis tri ct c ourt. 15 16 FO R T HECO URT: 17 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 18 19