Anthony v. Murphy, 5:15-cv-00450

Plaintiff Charles J. Anthony, Sr., a pro se litigant, sued New York State Supreme Court Justice James P. Murphy over a state-court mortgage foreclosure concerning real property at 4268 Gemini Path, Liverpool, NY.
Plaintiff alleges judicial malpractice and even treason based on Murphy’s handling of the foreclosure, asserting the foreclosing bank was time-barred and the state court therefore lacked jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed an amended/supplemental complaint and an in forma pauperis (IFP) application (a New York State form lacking regular expense detail).
The district court conducted an initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and granted IFP solely for that review.
The court recommended dismissal with prejudice, concluding lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, judicial immunity, and failure to state a claim; treason claim deemed frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction	State court lacked jurisdiction because bank was incorporated elsewhere and statute of limitations barred foreclosure	Federal court lacks jurisdiction over state-law judicial malpractice; no diversity alleged	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; judicial malpractice is a state-law claim and federal jurisdiction not established
Judicial immunity	Murphy acted in clear absence of jurisdiction (statute-barred), so immunity does not apply	Judges are absolutely immune for judicial acts unless non-judicial or in complete absence of all jurisdiction	Dismissed: Murphy immune; state Supreme Court has general jurisdiction and plaintiff did not show ‘complete absence of all jurisdiction’
Failure to state a claim	Complaint alleges malpractice, service defects, and other errors by the judge	Claims are conclusory, lacking required facts; treason frivolous	Dismissed for failure to state a claim; problems substantive so leave to amend denied (dismissal with prejudice)
IFP application adequacy	Plaintiff submitted state IFP form showing Social Security and pension income but omitted regular expense details	Court cannot fully assess poverty without federal form but will proceed to initial review	IFP granted for initial review only; because suit is recommended for dismissal, incomplete IFP did not change outcome

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness standard for § 1915)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions insufficient to avoid dismissal)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judicial immunity scope)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity applies even if action was in error)
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (historical basis for judicial immunity)
Gross v. Rell, 585 F.3d 72 (definition of complete absence of jurisdiction in immunity context)
Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204 (judicial acts are generally within immunity)