Hubbuch v. Small
1:25-cv-01003
E.D.N.YApr 14, 2025Background
- Edward Hubbuch filed a pro se lawsuit in Kings County Supreme Court, which was dismissed by Justice Abadi; he moved for reconsideration.
- The court clerk’s office required corrections on his motion, reclassified it, and changed the return date, which Hubbuch viewed as procedural irregularities.
- Hubbuch attempted to address these issues with court administrators, but his requests to meet were declined; he filed further motions and complaints, including a judicial misconduct complaint against Justice Abadi.
- Hubbuch subsequently filed a § 1983 action in federal court against various court clerks and employees, alleging due process, equal protection, and conspiracy violations related to the handling of his filings and court scheduling.
- The federal district court reviewed the complaint sua sponte and directed Hubbuch to explain why his claims were not barred by quasi-judicial immunity.
- The court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), finding absolute immunity applied and amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerks' actions violated civil rights | Clerks’ reclassification/delays denied due process, etc. | Immunity; acts integral to judicial process | Dismissed; clerks immune under quasi-judicial immunity |
| Do clerks have immunity for such functions? | Actions were outside permissible bounds, not immune | Processing and scheduling functions are protected | Clerks' case-processing tasks are immune |
| Whether procedural errors state a § 1983 claim | Filing changes and meeting denials are actionable irregularities | Ordinary case management isn't a constitutional violation | No plausible claim pled; complaint fails |
| Should leave to amend be granted? | (N/A - Pro se) | Amendment futile, defects substantive | Leave to amend denied as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judges generally have absolute judicial immunity)
- Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2009) (absolute immunity for judicial acts extends to money damages)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985) (quasi-judicial immunity can apply to non-judicial officers integrally associated with judicial proceedings)
- Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1997) (court staff are absolutely immune for tasks integral to the judicial process)