Caldwell v. Pesce, 83 F. Supp. 3d 472

Background

Ken and Lisa Caldwell (pro se) sued Appellate Term justices, court clerk, and private law firms/attorneys over underlying New York Civil Court litigation (Kings I and related state actions) and their prior federal action (08-CV-4207).
The Caldwells previously brought a federal suit arising from the same facts; that action was dismissed on the merits as to federal claims and state claims were sua sponte dismissed with prejudice.
The present complaint (filed July 7, 2014) repeats allegations that state judges and defense counsel endorsed and pursued frivolous litigation, asserting § 1983/§ 1985 claims, RICO, GBL § 349, fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice.
Plaintiffs challenge state-court judgments (including Judge Levine’s order and the Appellate Term’s February 7, 2014 affirmation) and attack actions by judges (Pesce, Weston, Solomon), Chief Clerk Kenny, Gutman (and partner Polirer), and Rivkin Radler (Novikoff, Korman).
The Court granted in forma pauperis status but dismissed the complaint sua sponte with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) on grounds including claim preclusion, judicial/Eleventh Amendment immunity, Rooker–Feldman, untimeliness and futility of relief, and failure to state plausible claims against the attorneys.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pro se complaint may proceed despite prior dismissal	Caldwell contends the matters were wrongly decided and seeks federal review	Defendants rely on prior final judgments and preclusion doctrines	Dismissed: res judicata/collateral estoppel bar re-litigation of same claims; dismissal with prejudice
Whether claims against state judges and clerk are actionable	Plaintiffs allege constitutional violations and seek damages/injunctive relief against Appellate Term justices and Chief Clerk Kenny	Defendants invoke Eleventh Amendment, absolute judicial immunity, and FICA (bar on injunctive relief)	Dismissed: Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages; absolute judicial immunity bars damages and FICA bars injunctive relief
Whether federal court may review state-court judgments (Rooker–Feldman)	Plaintiffs say state rulings were corrupt and seek reversal/relief	Defendants argue federal review of state judgments is barred by Rooker–Feldman	Dismissed: Rooker–Feldman precludes federal district court review of injuries caused by state-court judgments and invitations to reject them
Viability/timeliness of claims against defense counsel (Rivkin/Novikoff/Korman)	Plaintiffs allege frivolous motions, perjury, discovery obstruction, and CPLR violations; seek reconsideration of prior federal rulings	Defendants point to prior adjudication, procedural bars, Local Rule/Rule 60 deadlines, and that CPLR §321 provides no private cause of action	Dismissed: claims implausible or time-barred; Rule 60 relief unavailable; CPLR §321 gives no private right; dismissal with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (pleading standards and Iqbal/Twombly application at motion stage)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (facial plausibility requirement)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (qualified immunity principles and malice insufficient to overcome)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (immunity applies despite allegations of malicious or corrupt action)
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (functional approach to immunity and limits for nonjudicial acts)
Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (elements of Rooker–Feldman doctrine)
Salahuddin v. Jones, 992 F.2d 447 (2d Cir. 1993) (res judicata/claim preclusion principles)