09 -01 80 -cv G otbe tter v . W endt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y ORD E R DO N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1, 20 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F A PPELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A PAR TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L APP E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 30 dayof M ar ch, tw o thous and t en. th P RE S E NT : RO BE RT D. S AC K,

R E E N A R A G G I, PETE R W . HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - H O W A R D G O T B E T T E R , P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 09- 0180- cv P E T E R M . W E N D T , D O U G L A S E . M c K E O N , W I LLI A M P. M c CO O E, W I LLI A M J . D A V I S, D ef endant s -Appel l ees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : H O W A R D G O T B E T T E R , pro se , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L E E S : PA T R I C K J . W A L SH , A s s i s t a nt Sol i ci t or G ener al of C ou n sel ( B arbar a D . U nderw ood, Sol i ci tor G en era l, P eter K ara n ji a, S p ec ia l C ouns el to th e S o lic ito r G e n e ra l, on the br i ef ) f orA ndr ew M . C uom o, A t t orneyG ener al of the St at e of N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k.2

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (R ic h a rd M . B e rm a n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e De c e mb e r4 , 2 0 0 8 j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . Pr o s e pl ai nt i ff H ow ar d G otbett erappea l s fr om the di s m i s s al o f hi s compl ai ntfor
m oneydamages fi l ed under42 U
. S. C
. § 198 3 ag ains t Judge Pet erM . W endtforrul i ng agai ns tG otbett eri n an ac t i on i n the H ous i ng Par tof t he C i vi l C our tof the C i tyof N ew Y or k. We a s s u me th e p a r t i e s ’ f a mi l i a r i ty wi th th e f

a c t s a n d r e c o r d o f p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we
r e f e r e n c e o n l ya s n e c e s s a r yt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. I n r evi ew i ng a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i ssal o f a co m pl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) , w e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or and l egal concl us i ons de novo, acc ept i ng al l m at er i al fac t s al l eged i n the compl ai ntas t rue
an d d raw ing all rea so n ab le in fe ren ce s in the p lai n ti ff ’s fa v o r. See M o rriso n v . N a t’l A u stl. B ank Lt d. , 547 F. 3d 167, 170 ( 2d C i r . 2008)
. D i s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 1) i s pr oper“w hen the di s tr i ctcourtl acks the s t atut oryorcons t i tut i onal pow ert o adj udi cat e” the ca s e. M a k a r o v a v . Un i t e d S t a t e s , 2 0 1 F . 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. Up o n d e n o v o r e v i e w, we concl ude, fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s t at ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt , thatpl ai nt i ff’ s § 1983
c l a i m s a r e b a r r e d b y th e d o c tr i n e o f j u d i c i a l i m m u n i ty. I ti s w el l
- es t abl i s hed t hat j udges enj oy abs ol ut e i m m uni ty“forthei rj udi ci al act s , even
w hen s uch ac t s ar e i n exce s s of thei rj ur i s di ct ion, and ar e al l eged t o have be en done
m al i ci ous l yorcorrupt l y . ” Stum p v. Sp ark m an , 435 U
. S. 349, 355- 56 ( 1978) ( i nt ernal3

quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee al s o N i xon v. Fi t zger al d, 457 U
. S. 731, 766 ( 1982) ; B l i ven v. H unt , 579 F. 3d 204, 209- 10 ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. A n exce pt i on appl i es onl yi f the j udge “‘ act ed in the clea r ab s en ce o f a ll juri sd ict ion , ’” T u ck er v . O u tw ater, 1 1 8 F . 3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 3 (2d C ir
. 1997) ( quot i ng Stum p v. Spar km an, 435 U
. S. at356- 57)
. A cl earabs ence of j ur i s di ct i on has obj ecti v e an d s ubj ect i ve component s , r equi r i ng a s how i ng ( 1) that“no r eas onabl e j udge
w oul d have thoughtj ur i s di ct i on pr oper ” and ( 2) that the j udge “a ctual l yknew orm us thave know n of the j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct . ” I d. at934 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. G otbett er
c a n s h o w n e ith e r. G otbett er ar gues thatJ udge W endtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe cha l l enged hol dover pr ocee di ng beca us e s uch a pr ocee di ng cannotbe mai nt ai ned w her e the pr emi s es ar e partof
an un r e g i s t e r e d mul t i p l e d wel l i n g . A r e a s o n a b l e j u d g e mi g h th a v e th o u g h to th e r wi s e, how ever , i n l i ghtof N ew Y or k pr ece denthol di ng that the fai l ur e t o fi l e a “ m ul t i pl e dw el l i ng
re g is tr a tio n ” s ta te m e n t, s e e N .Y .C . A d m in
. C o d e § 2 7 -2 1 0 7 (b ); 2 2 N .Y . C o m p . C o d e s R . & R e g s. tit. 2 2 § 2 0 8 .4 2 (g ), “w a s n o t in ten d e d to a n d c a n n o t a f f e c t th e ju risd ictio n o f

th e C iv il C our t , part i cul arly w i th r es pectt o hol doverpr ocee di ngs , ” C han v. A dos s a, 760 N
. Y . S. 2d 609, 611 ( N . Y . A pp. T erm 2003) ; s ee al s o C zerw i ns ki v. H ay es , 799 N . Y . S. 2d 349, 3 53 ( N . Y . A p p . T erm 2005) ( hol di ng that“ow nerof an unr egi s t er ed mul t i pl e dw el l i ng m ay
m ai nt ai n a hol doverpr ocee di ng and m ay r ecove r pos s es s i on i n s uch a pr ocee di ng w her e the g rou n d fo r reco v eryis no t r en t- b ase d ”). I n anyevent , as s um i ng ar guendo thatJ udge W endterr oneous l yexer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on
o v e r th e ho l do ver proceeding, the record do es not s up po rta con cl usi on that he di d so in know i ng vi ol at i on of the al l eged j ur i s di ct i onal l i m i t s . T he re m edyforanys uch err ori s an4

app eal , no ta § 1 98 3 acti on for m on eydam ages. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e th a t th e d i s tr i c t c o u rt p r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e d p l a i n t i f f ’ s c l a i ms
a s b a rr e d b yju d ic ia l im m u n ity. W e have cons i der ed pl ai nt i ff’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude thatt hey
a r e wi th o u tme r i t . I n l i g h to f th e f o r e g o i n g , th e j u d g me n t o f th e d i s tr i c t c o u r ti s AF F I RMED . FOR TH E CO UR T: CATHER I NE O’ HAG AN W OLF E, CLE RK