Johnson v. Raggi
1:16-cv-02765
| E.D.N.Y | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff D.K. Johnson, pro se, sued Judge Reena Raggi seeking money damages for actions taken while presiding over his 1989–1991 federal criminal prosecution and sentencing.
- Johnson alleges Judge Raggi lacked jurisdiction, proceeded despite counsel’s jurisdictional challenge, and violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights; he also alleges Fourth Amendment abuses by investigators whose evidence was used at trial.
- The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte on June 30, 2016, concluding Judge Raggi was protected by absolute judicial immunity for acts within her judicial role.
- Johnson filed a pro se letter construed as a motion for reconsideration arguing, principally, that the court failed to follow Rule 8 and misapplied the law.
- The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration and found Johnson pointed to no controlling decisions or facts it had overlooked that would alter its prior ruling.
- The court denied the motion for reconsideration on January 25, 2017, reiterating that dismissal for judicial immunity was proper and that reconsideration is not a vehicle to relitigate or reargue rejected claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim because Judge Raggi is entitled to absolute judicial immunity | Johnson argued the court misapplied the law and that Rule 8 requirements were not satisfied | Court maintained that claims arise from judicial acts and therefore are barred by absolute immunity | Court held dismissal on absolute immunity grounds proper; complaint was frivolous as to an immune defendant |
| Whether the court should grant reconsideration of its June 30, 2016 decision | Johnson contended the court overlooked deficiencies under Rule 8 and misinterpreted controlling law | Court argued Johnson failed to identify controlling decisions or facts it had overlooked; motion for reconsideration is not for relitigation | Court denied reconsideration under the strict standard; no overlooked controlling authority or facts shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiley v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2015) (courts must liberally construe pro se filings)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (standards for granting a motion for reconsideration)
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (reconsideration is not for relitigating issues or taking a second bite at the apple)
- Cedar Petrochem., Inc. v. Dongbu Hannong Chem. Co., Ltd., [citation="628 F. App'x 793"] (2d Cir. 2015) (movant must point to controlling decisions or data the court overlooked)
- Lichtenberg v. Besicorp Grp. Inc., [citation="28 F. App'x 73"] (2d Cir. 2002) (movant must demonstrate the court overlooked controlling decisions or facts presented earlier)