1 17-1169-cv Burdick v. Town of Schroeppel 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND 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 (W ITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 th day of April, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges, TIMOTHY C. STANCEU,* Judge.

_________________________________________ Steven D. Burdick, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. 17-1169-cv Town of Schroeppel, et al., Defendants-Appellees .

__________________________________________

* Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge for the United St ates Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.2 FOR APPELLANT: Steven D. Burdick, pro se , Fulton, New York. FOR APPELLEES: No appearance. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (D’Agostino, J .; Dancks, M.J. ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Steven D. Burdick, proceeding pro se , appeals from the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint ag ainst Schroeppel Town Justice Armen J. Nazarian, Oswego County Court Judge Donald T odd, the Town of Schroeppel, Oswego County, criminal defense attorney Salvatore Lanza, and Oswego County Commissioner of Jurors James Cloonan. As relevant on appeal, Burdick’s complaint alleges that Justice Nazari an and Judge Todd violated his constitutiona l rights through actions they undertook while presiding over his 2013 state court criminal trial and subs equent appeal. The district court sua sponte dismissed the claims against Justice Nazarian and Judge Todd with prejudice, reasoning that they were entitled to absolute judicial immunity and that the claims were also barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Burdick timely appeals. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep’t , 879 F.3d 486, 489 (2d Cir. 2018). On appeal, Burdick challenges only the district cour t’s determination that Justice Nazarian and Judge Todd were entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Thus, he has abandoned any cha llenge to the district3 court’s dismissal of his other claims. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1995). Judges acting in their judicial capacity are ab solutely immune from suit, even where the plaintiff asserts constituti onal violations under § 1983. Bliven v. Hunt , 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009). Absolute judicial immunity applies even if the judge allegedly acte d in bad faith or with malice. Id. It can be overcome only if (1) the act is not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity, or (2) the act, “though judicial in natu re, [is] taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991). Here, the challe nged acts included typical judicial acts arising out of Burdick’s 2013 cr iminal conviction and appeal. See Bliven , 579 F.3d at 210 (“[A]cts arising out of, or relate d to, individual cases before the judge are c onsidered judicial in nature.”). Additionally, Justi ce Nazarian and Judge Todd had ju risdiction over the criminal conviction and appeal. See Gross v. Rell , 585 F.3d 72, 84 (2d Cir. 2009); N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §§ 10.30, 450.60(3). Thus, the district court properly concluded that Justice Nazarian and Judge Todd were entitled to absolu te judicial immunity. We have considered Burdick’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court