Finn v. Anderson
592 F. App'x 16
2d Cir.2014Background
- Finn, a pro se attorney, sued Gloria J. Anderson, staff counsel to the NYS Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District.
- Finn alleged Anderson interfered in Finn’s former client’s fee-dispute arbitration and advised reinstating that arbitration.
- The district court dismissed Finn’s complaint, holding Anderson had absolute quasi-judicial immunity for her actions related to the grievance proceedings.
- Finn also asserted equal protection, substantive due process, and conspiracy claims connected to pro bono counsel for Finn’s estranged husband.
- The court concluded Finn failed to state these claims, and therefore dismissal was proper on all counts.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on de novo review of the Rule 12(b)(6) ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity for arbitration involvement | Finn argues Anderson lacked absolute immunity for her arbitration-related actions. | Anderson is protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity for acts within her official role. | Anderson entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity; district court correct. |
| Equal protection class-of-one claim | Finn claims Anderson treated Finn differently from similarly situated individuals. | Finn failed to identify any similarly situated person to compare. | Plaintiff's equal protection claim rejected for lack of plausible comparators. |
| Substantive due process | Finn asserts a fundamental right to marriage/family autonomy was violated by Anderson’s actions. | Right to marry is fundamental, but does not extend to pursuing divorce unassisted by counsel as claimed. | Finn’s substantive due process claim rejected. |
| Conspiracy under § 1985 | Finn alleges a conspiracy to deprive her of due process rights. | Finn fails to identify a cognizable property interest or plausible conspiracy. | § 1985 conspiracy claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1988) (absolute immunity for quasi-judicial acts)
- Anonymous v. Ass’n of the Bar of City of New York, 515 F.2d 427 (2d Cir. 1975) (grievance committee acts as quasi-judicial body)
- McKeown v. N.Y. State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct, 377 F. App’x 121 (2d Cir. 2010) (analogy grouping for immunity in discipline proceedings)
- Napolitano v. Saltzman, 315 F. App’x 351 (2d Cir. 2009) (actions as counsel to the Grievance Committee receive protection)
- Barbara v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 99 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1996) (analogy for quasi-public adjudicatory duties)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (jurisdiction must be construed broadly for immunity to apply)
- Ferran v. Town of Nassau, 471 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 2006) (due process requires a cognizable property interest)
- Analytical Diagnostic Labs, Inc. v. Kusel, 626 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (class-of-one standard requires highly similar comparators)