Jones v. Acker
1:24-cv-07904
S.D.N.Y.May 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Shelly Jones and Warren Jones, representing themselves pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a federal complaint related to a 2019 state court foreclosure proceeding on their home in New York.
- The complaint named Justice Christi Acker (who presided over the foreclosure), two law firms involved in the state proceedings (Fein, Such, & Crain LLP and Blank Rome), and Pennymac Loan Services, LLC (the creditor).
- Plaintiffs alleged due process violations, a lack of jurisdiction, bias by Justice Acker, and an allegedly unfair summary judgment in favor of Pennymac.
- The original complaint was dismissed for lack of factual detail and legal deficiencies, but plaintiffs were given a chance to re-plead.
- The amended complaint largely reiterated earlier claims, naming the private entities as defendants solely because they participated as representatives or parties in the foreclosure.
- The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, judicial immunity, lack of state action, and lack of jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity of Justice Acker | Justice Acker acted outside her authority | Judge's actions were judicial acts | Judge immune; claims dismissed |
| Section 1983 claims against private defendants | Defendants participated in foreclosure | Defendants are not state actors | No state action; claims dismissed |
| Adequacy of amended complaint under federal law | Amended to add detail and new defendants | Insufficient facts/legal defects | Still fails to state a claim; dismissed |
| Federal jurisdiction over state foreclosure issue | Federal court should remedy wrongs | Should be directed to state courts | No jurisdiction (Rooker-Feldman); dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (defines requirements for Section 1983 claims)
- Mills v. Fischer, 645 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2011) (absolute judicial immunity renders claims frivolous for IFP purposes)
- Sykes v. Bank of America, 723 F.3d 399 (2d Cir. 2013) (private parties typically not liable under § 1983)
- Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (Constitution does not regulate private party conduct)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (dismissal of federal claims usually warrants declining jurisdiction over remaining state law claims)