777 F. Supp. 2d 692
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiff Shereen Bobrowsky, proceeding pro se, sues The Yonkers Courthouse and named judges for violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the ADA.
- Plaintiff challenges a 6/23/2006 Family Court protective order requiring her to stay away from her mother and the mother's home, and a related 5/23/2008 order of protection.
- Plaintiff was convicted of criminal contempt for violating the 6/23/06 protective order and later appealed; conviction affirmed in 2009.
- Plaintiff alleges retaliatory conduct and seeks relief including voiding the protective orders, vacating convictions, removing cases to federal court, and barring state attorneys general from defending the judges.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6); the court addresses jurisdiction, abstention doctrines, and immunity defenses.
- The court grants the motion to dismiss and dismisses all claims against the named judicial defendants with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims | Bobrowsky seeks to void state orders and convictions. | Rooker-Feldman bars review of state-court judgments. | Jurisdiction lacks under Rooker-Feldman. |
| Whether Younger abstention applies to the requested relief | Plaintiff seeks federal intervention in ongoing state proceedings. | Younger requires abstention for ongoing state criminal proceedings. | Younger abstention applies; relief denied. |
| Whether judicial immunity bars claims against the named judges | Alleges improper actions by judges and retaliation. | Judicial acts are immune from §1983 liability. | Judicial immunity bars claims against the judges. |
| Whether the ADA claim is viable | Plaintiff invokes Title II ADA rights regarding access and discrimination. | Plaintiff fails to plead disability or discriminatory conduct. | ADA claim dismissed for insufficient pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine is narrow; bars review of state judgments.)
- Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (Four-part test for applying Rooker-Feldman.)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman requirements: lost in state court, injuries from state judgment, invites review, judgment before district court.)
- Phillips ex rel. Green v. City of New York, 453 F. Supp. 2d 690 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Explains Rooker-Feldman applicability.)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (Judicial immunity overview for acts within judicial capacity.)
- Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757 (2d Cir. 1999) (Absolute judicial immunity; exceptions for nonjudicial acts or absence of jurisdiction.)
- Nieves (People v. Nieves), Not provided in excerpt (Not provided) (Appealability of permanent orders of protection following conviction (state-law context referenced).)