712 F. App'x 21
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Feng Li, a pro se attorney, sued two attorneys who prosecuted disciplinary charges against him at the Ninth Judicial District Attorney Grievance Committee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
- Li sued the defendants in both their individual and official capacities and sought money damages plus declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Southern District of New York dismissed the complaint sua sponte, citing Eleventh Amendment immunity and res judicata.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and noted that pro se attorneys receive no special solicitude.
- The Court affirmed: it held official-capacity money-damage claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment; individual-capacity claims were subject to absolute prosecutorial immunity; and requests for injunctive/declaratory relief were not viable because Li alleged only past harms and Eleventh Amendment limits would block state-law-based relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment jurisdiction for official-capacity money damages | Li sought money damages from officials in their official capacities | State immunity bars suits for money damages absent waiver or congressional abrogation | Dismissed: Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity money damages |
| Absolute immunity for individual-capacity claims | Li challenged defendants' conduct in prosecuting disciplinary charges | Defendants performed prosecutorial functions and claim absolute immunity | Dismissed/immune: prosecutors/grievance counsel entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity |
| Availability of prospective injunctive/declaratory relief | Li sought declaratory/injunctive relief regarding discipline and committee compliance | Relief is prospective only if there is an ongoing or future violation; Eleventh Amendment bars relief grounded in state-law claims | Dismissed: Li alleged only past harms; no plausible future threat; Eleventh Amendment would bar state-law claims for relief |
| Res judicata (alternative basis) | Li argued claims were not precluded | District court found res judicata barred claims | Not reached on appeal (Second Circuit affirmed on immunity grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard for de novo review of sua sponte dismissal)
- Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (no special solicitude for attorneys proceeding pro se)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. N.Y. State Office of Real Prop. Servs., 306 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2002) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state unless waived)
- Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2002) (Eleventh Amendment applies to suits against state officials in their official capacities)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (officials performing functions analogous to prosecutors may claim absolute immunity)
- Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1988) (absolute immunity extends to officials performing judicial-process functions)
- DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (functional test for prosecutorial immunity)
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) (judicial immunity not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against judicial officers)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (claims that state officials violated state law are barred by the Eleventh Amendment)