Feng Li v. Rabner
643 F. App'x 57
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Feng Li, a New York–licensed attorney, sued New Jersey, its courts, judges, and ethics officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after New Jersey disciplinary proceedings led to his disbarment in that State.
- Li challenged a New Jersey court rule permitting discipline for conduct occurring in New York, sought damages, and requested injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The Southern District of New York dismissed the complaint sua sponte, concluding defendants were immune and that federal jurisdiction was barred by Rooker–Feldman in part.
- Li appealed pro se to the Second Circuit; no appellee briefs were filed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, largely adopting the district court’s April 22, 2015 opinion and addressing Eleventh Amendment immunity, § 1983 limits on injunctive relief against judicial officers, Rooker–Feldman, and the merits of Li’s constitutional challenge to the New Jersey rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for State and State courts | Li sought prospective relief so immunity should not bar suit | State and State courts are immune under Eleventh Amendment regardless of relief sought | Dismissal affirmed: Eleventh Amendment bars suit against State and its courts |
| Injunctive relief against judicial/quasi‑judicial officers under § 1983 | Relief sought was prospective to stop ongoing violations | § 1983 bars injunctive relief against judicial officers absent violation of a declaratory decree or unavailability of declaratory relief | Dismissal affirmed: individual defendants are judicial/quasi‑judicial and injunctive relief was barred; Li didn’t allege declaratory‑decree violation or unavailability |
| Applicability of Rooker–Feldman doctrine to rule challenge | Federal court may review the state rule’s constitutionality | State judgments are generally not reviewable by lower federal courts | Rooker–Feldman does not bar a federal challenge to a statute or rule, but dismissal was affirmed on other grounds |
| Merits of constitutional challenge to NJ rule disciplining out‑of‑state conduct | Rule 1:20‑3 (or related rules) unconstitutionally permits NJ to discipline out‑of‑state conduct without jurisdiction or due process | New Jersey’s disciplinary jurisdiction (Court Rule 1:20‑1(a)) subjects NJ‑authorized attorneys to Supreme Court disciplinary authority; disciplining conduct in another state is not per se unconstitutional | Dismissal affirmed: Li’s due process claim is frivolous and unsupported by authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2000) (district court may dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte)
- Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2006) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a State regardless of relief sought)
- Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635 (U.S. 2002) (federal suit against state official not barred by Eleventh Amendment when alleging ongoing violation and seeking prospective relief)
- Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757 (2d Cir. 1999) (quasi‑judicial actors entitled to absolute immunity; injunctive relief under § 1983 limited absent declaratory decree issues)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (U.S. 2011) (state‑court decisions are not reviewable by lower federal courts, but statutes or rules may be challenged in federal court)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (limits on federal review of state court judgments)
- Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (pro se litigants are not entitled to special solicitude in briefing legal arguments)