10-2958- pr Ce par ano v . Sout

ham pton J ust ic e Cour

t 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT SU MM ARY ORDER

RULING S B Y SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAV E P RECEDENTI AL EFF ECT. CITATIO N TO A SUM M ARY O RDER FILED ON O R AFTER JANUA RY 1, 20 07 , IS PERM ITTED AN D IS G OVERN ED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PRO CEDURE 32 .1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32 .1. 1. WH EN CITI NG A SUM M ARY O RDER I N A D OCUMENT FILED W ITH TH IS COURT, A

PARTY MUST CITE EITH ER THE FEDERAL APPENDI X OR AN ELECTR ONIC DATABASE ( WIT H TH E NOTATI ON “SUM M ARY ORD E R ” ) . A P A R T Y CITI NG A SUM M ARY O RDER MUST SERVE A CO PY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRESENTED BY COU NSEL.

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Danie l Patrick Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 5 day

of January , two thousand eleve n. th PRES ENT: G U ID O C A LA B R E S I,

ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, DEB RA ANN L I VI

NGSTON, Circuit Judges
.

___________________________________________________ Anthony J . Cepara no, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 10-2958-pr Southampton J ustice Court, Hon. Judge John Doe, J ohn Doe, Southampton J ustice Court Clerk,

Defendants-A

ppellees
.

____________________________________________________ FOR APPEL LANT: Anthony J . Cepara no, pro s e , Gowanda , N.Y. FOR APPEL L EE: Diane K . Fa rre ll (J eltje deJong, on the brief ), De vitt, S pellman, Ba rre tt, L L P, Sm ithtown, N.Y.2 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of New Y ork (F euer stein, J. ). UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AND DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED
. Appellant Anthony

J . Cepara no appea ls a judg ment of the district cour t gr antingthe Def endants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jur isdiction after de terminingthat Cepara no’s claims ag ainst a Southampton J ustice Court judg e and c ourt cler k wer e bar

red by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity
. Cepara no also appe als from the district c ourt’s denia l of his motions to strike pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(f) , for judg ment on the pleading s pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(c) , to amend the
amou nt o f d ama g e s r e qu e ste d, and fo r F e d. R. C iv. P. 1 1( b) sa nc tio ns . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, the pr ocedur al history of the c ase, a

nd the issues on appea l. Even a ssuming that the district cour t erre d in dismi ssing Cepa rano’ s claims ag ainst the Southampton J ustice Court judg e and c ourt cler k in their individual capa cities for la ck of
su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n, an in de pe nd e nt r e vie w o f t he re c or d a

nd re le va nt c a se law r e ve a ls that this error w as har

mless beca

use Cepar ano’s c omplaint failed to state a c laim upon which relief may be g rante d. A cour

t fac ed with a motion to dismi ss a complaint for f ailure to state a claim upon which r elief ma y be g rante d must acce pt the fac tual alleg ations set forth in the complaint as true a

nd drawall rea sonable infe renc es in favor of the plaintiff. See Clev eland v. Cap lawEn te rs. , 448 F.3d 518, 521 ( 2d Cir. 2006); Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 6). A c omplaint must plead “e noug h fac ts to state a claim to re lief that is plausible on its face .” Bell Atl. Corp.3

v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A c laim will have “f acia l plausibili ty

when the plaintiff pleads f

actua l content that allows the c ourt to draw the rea sonable infe renc e that the defe ndant is liable for the misconduct alleg ed.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009). “A judg e def

endingag ainst a sec tion 1983 suitis entitled to absolute immuni ty from damag es for

actions per formed in his judicial ca pacity .” Fi e lds v . S

olo ff , 920 F.2d 1114, 1119 (2d Cir. 1990). Whether a judge acte d in a “judicial c apac ity” depe nds on the “nature of the act [complained of] itself, i.e. , whether it is a function normally

perf ormed by a judg e, and [on] the expectations of the pa rties, i.e. , whether

they dealt with the judg e in his judicial capa city .” Stump v. Sparkm an , 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). F urther, if the judg e is perf

orming in his judi cial ca

pacity , the “judg e will not be depr ived of immunity beca use the a ction he took was in er ror, wa s done maliciously , or wa s in ex cess of his authority ; rather , he will be subjec t to liabilit y

only when he has ac ted in the ‘c lear absenc e of a ll jurisdiction.’” Stump , 4 35 U. S.
at 35 6- 57 ; see also Fields , 920 F.2d at 1119 (“L iability will not attach wher e a judg e violated state law b y

an in c or re c t de c isi on .” ). In th is a na ly sis , “ the sc op e of

the jud g e ’s jur isd ic tio n [is ] to be construe d broadly ,” Maestri v. J utkofsky , 860 F.2d 50, 53 ( 2d Cir. 1988) (alter ation
o m i t t ed ) ( qu o t i n g Stump , 435 U.S. at 356) (inter nal quotation marks omitted), and the asser ted immunit y will only be over come whe n the “judg e cle arly lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter,” id. at 52. Moreove r, cour

t clerks ha

ve bee n g rante d simil ar immunity from dama g es “f

or perf ormanc e of ta sks which ar e judicial in nature and an integral pa rt of the judicial pr ocess.” Ro dr igu e z v . W e pr in , 116 F.3d 62, 66 ( 2d Cir. 1997). Ther efor e, “[e]ven ‘whe n functions that
are more a dminist rative in c hara cter have be en under

taken pur suant to the expli cit direc tion of4

a judicial off

icer , . . . that office r’s immunity is also available to the subor dinate.’” Id. at 67 (o m i s s i o ni no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Kin c aid v . V ail , 969 F.2d 594, 601 ( 7th Cir. 1992)). The a uthorizi ngof Cepar ano’s be nch wa rra nt was cle arly

a judicial ac t that entitles the Southampton J ustice Court judg e to absolute immunity
. See M ireles v. W

aco , 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1 99 1) (o rd e ri ngc ourt

of fi c e rs to b ri ngan in div idu a l be fo re the c ourt is a jud ic ia l a c t) ; see als o N. Y. Cr im. Pr oc . L aw § 53 0. 70 (1 ) ( a uth or izin gloc a l c ourt s to iss ue be nc h w arr ants ); c f. Burns v. Ree d , 5 00 U. S. 4 78 , 4 92 (1 99 1) (“ [T]he iss ua nc e of a se arc h w arr ant i s
un qu e sti on a

bly a jud ic ia l a c t” ). Th e fa c t th at th e be nc h w arr ant m ay have be e n e rr on e ou sly issued befor e Cepa

rano’ s fine wa s due does not re nder the judge ’s authorization of that
wa rr ant a no nju dic ia l a c tio n b e c a

us e “ [i]f j ud ic ia l immun ity me ans any

thi ng , it me ans that a jud g e ‘w ill no t be de pr ive d o f i mmunit y be c a us e the a c tio n h e too k w a s in e rr or . . . o r w a s in excess of his authority .’” Mireles , 5 0 2 U. S
. at1 2 -1 3 (o m i s s i o ni no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Stump , 43 5 U .S. at 35 6) . F ur

the r, e ve n a ssumin g , a s Ce pa ra no argue s, that th e jud g e did no t po sse ss proper persona l jurisdiction over him when the be nch wa rra nt was issued, the judg e did not act in the clea

r abse nce of all

jur isd ic tio n n e c e ssa

ry to d e pr ive the jud g e of

immun ity

be c a us e loc a l c ri min a l c ourt s in

Ne w Y or k p os se ss s ub

je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n o ve r t he mis de me ano r t o which Cepa

rano ple d guilty

in the Southampton J ustice Court. See Gre e n v . M araio , 722 F.2d 1013, 1017 (2d Cir. 1983) (A lthough tria l judge may have la cked pe rsonal jurisdiction over defe ndant af

ter his sentenc ing, “ it is apparent that a judge who possesses subjec t matter jurisdiction is notwithin the ‘clea r abse nce of

all jurisdiction’ posture which w ould deprive him of the use of the defe nse of judicial immunity .”); N.Y . Crim. Proc. L aw §§ 10.30( 1)-( 2) (loca l criminal courts possess jurisdiction over a ll offense s other than f elonies).5 Additionally , beca

use the a uthorizi ngof a be nch wa

rra nt is a judicial function, the court c lerk is also entitled to absolute immunity for issuingthe war

rant. See R odriguez , 116 F.3d at 67 (“It is ‘the nature of the func tion perfor med, not the identity

of the a ctor who perf ormed it,’ that dete rmines whethe r an individual is entitled to immuni ty .” (quoting Fo rre ste r v . W hite , 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988)). Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment with reg ard to Cepa rano’ s § 1983 claims. Fina lly , the district court did not abuse its discre tion in denying Ce para no’s motion fo r R ule 11 sanc tio ns and

pr op e rl y de nie d Ce pa

ra no ’s mot ion s to str ike , to ame nd his dama g e s, and

fo r j ud g me nt o n th e ple a din g s. F o r th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRMED. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk