Basile v. Connolly, 538 F. App'x 5

Basile, proceeding pro se, sued New York Supreme Court Justice Connolly and private defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of New York.
The district court dismissed Basile's § 1983 complaint as to all defendants.
The district court addressed the January 20, 2012 protective order issued in Basile's state case and its connection to removal to federal court.
Basile alleged constitutional violations related to the protective order and alleged conspiratorial action by private defendants with the judge.
Basile had notice and opportunity to participate in the hearing and to appeal the protective order after removal.
The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding immunity and lack of color-of-state-law basis precluded § 1983 claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Justice Connolly is absolutely immune from §1983 liability.	Basile argues for liability against Connolly for the protective order.	Connolly's actions are judicial acts; she is immune.	Yes, Connolly is absolutely immune.
Whether private defendants can be sued under §1983 for coercive advocacy surrounding a protective order.	Basile contends the private defendants conspired with Connolly to violate rights.	No plausible allegation of unconstitutional act by Connolly; no color-of-law conspiracy.	No, private defendants lack §1983 liability absent state action.
Whether Basile's due process rights were violated given notice and opportunity to be heard.	Basile asserts deprivation of process.	Notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation sufficed; post-removal remedy exists.	No due process violation; notice and hearing sufficed.
Whether Basile's state-law claims should have been entertained under supplemental jurisdiction.	State claims should proceed alongside federal ones.	District court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed.	District court did not abuse its discretion; state claims dismissed.

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court 1978) (judicial acts shielded by absolute immunity; context of jurisdictional boundaries)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court 1991) (complete absence of jurisdiction required for non-immunity; not applicable here)
Gross v. Rell, 585 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (conservatorship/related judicial actions within judicial functions; immunity)
Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (private entity liability requires concert with state actor to commit unconstitutional act)
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (due process with notice and opportunity to be heard supports validity of deprivation remedy)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (refusal to grant leave to amend where futile; standard for pro se pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)