Neroni v. Mayberger
3:13-cv-01339
N.D.N.Y.Mar 27, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Frederick J. Neroni, a former New York attorney disbarred in 2011, sued Appellate Division Third Department Chief Clerk Robert Mayberger, the Third Department Committee on Professional Standards (COPS), and Chief Judge Karen Peters alleging due process and equal protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Central factual allegation: Mayberger simultaneously supervised the attorney-discipline process and served as Chief Clerk for the court that ultimately signed the disbarment order, creating an alleged conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety.
- Remedies sought: enjoin enforcement of the July 7, 2011 disbarment order, restore Neroni’s license, and declare the disbarment void for lack of authority/constitutional deficiencies.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), asserting quasi‑judicial and absolute judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and § 1983 non‑person status for COPS, Rooker–Feldman and Younger abstention doctrines, and that the Fifth Amendment claim is inapplicable to state actors.
- The district court granted dismissal on the alternative grounds raised by defendants, adding that Neroni — an experienced, formerly admitted attorney — was not entitled to pro se solicitude, that his Fifth Amendment claim was abandoned, and that amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quasi‑judicial / judicial immunity for Mayberger and Peters | Mayberger and Peters are sued in administrative supervisory capacities (not judicial), so immunity does not apply | Actions at issue were part of judicial/adjudicative functions; immunity (quasi‑judicial for committees and absolute for judges) bars relief | Court held immunity bars claims against Mayberger and Peters as the requested relief would attack judicial acts and the disbarment order |
| COPS liability under § 1983 / Eleventh Amendment | COPS is a state political subdivision and therefore a "person" under § 1983; Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit | COPS is part of the State and thus not a § 1983 person; Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity protects it | Court accepted defendants’ immunity arguments and dismissed COPS from § 1983 liability |
| Rooker–Feldman doctrine | Rooker–Feldman does not apply because this is not an appeal and constitutional challenges to rules are permitted | Plaintiff is effectively asking federal court to overturn a state disbarment order, so Rooker–Feldman deprives district court jurisdiction | Court found Rooker–Feldman bars federal adjudication to the extent relief would overturn the state disbarment |
| Younger abstention / comity | No state proceedings are pending, so Younger abstention/unwillingness to interfere is inapplicable | Even absent ongoing state proceedings, comity/Younger principles counsel abstention from intrusive review of state attorney‑discipline matters | Court relied on Younger/comity and Second Circuit precedent to decline to exercise jurisdiction in this context |
| Fifth Amendment claim applicability | Neroni pleaded a Fifth Amendment due process violation | Fifth Amendment applies only to federal actors; defendants moved to dismiss that theory | Court deemed the Fifth Amendment argument abandoned and/or meritless and dismissed it |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbulak v. Suffolk, 654 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1981) (treatment of pro se litigants and when solicitude may be limited)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile)
- Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129 (2d Cir. 1993) (district court not required to grant leave to amend where amendment would be unproductive)
- Neroni v. Coccoma, [citation="591 F. App'x 28"] (2d Cir. 2015) (Second Circuit recognizes extension of quasi‑judicial immunity to attorney disciplinary committees)