Bracci v. Becker
1:11-cv-01473
N.D.N.Y.Jan 9, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege a pattern of retaliation and bias by Judge Becker and seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Becker, Mulvey, Lippman, the State, and OCA.
- Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on Dec. 17, 2011 and an amended complaint on Jan. 24, 2012.
- The action targets Becker’s rulings across family, county, and supreme court matters and seeks various constitutional challenges to New York’s judicial discipline framework.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Plaintiffs moved to supplement the amended complaint.
- The court addresses—among others—judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, standing, abstention doctrines, vagueness/due process challenges to § 130-1.1(c) and § 130-1.2, and supplemental state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are immune from suit on federal claims. | Becker/Mulvey/Lippman acted in judicial capacity. | Absolute judicial immunity applies; claims barred. | All defendants enjoy absolute judicial immunity for acts in their judicial capacity. |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the claims and whether Plaintiffs have standing. | Claims against NY state actors seek relief against state policies. | Sovereign immunity bars monetary and prospective relief; standing lacking. | Eleventh Amendment bars monetary and non-prospective relief; Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge NY discipline laws. |
| Whether Younger and Rooker-Feldman doctrines bar relief for state-court judgments. | State judgments should be reviewable in federal court. | Abstention and preclusion principles apply. | Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention bar the requested relief and federal review of state dispositions. |
| Whether 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1(c)(2) and § 130-1.2 are void for vagueness or violate due process. | Sections are vague and unconstitutional as applied. | Sections provide explicit standards and notice; due process satisfied. | Sections are not void for vagueness and do not violate due process as applied. |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and allow supplementation. | State-law claims should be considered. | Federal claims dismissed; court should decline supplemental jurisdiction. | The court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses state-law claims without prejudice; supplemental amendment denied as futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (absolute judicial immunity protects judicial acts; immunity extends to injunctive relief limitations)
- Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2009) (judicial immunity applies to official acts; mere malice or error not enough to pierce)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (allows prospective relief against state actors enforcing federal violations)
- In re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Nickel, 411 F.3d 367 (2d Cir. 2005) (Ex parte Young connection requirement and state-officer suit)
- O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (abstention doctrine principles guiding Younger-related relief)
- Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2006) (abstention when relief would intrude into state court administration)