Whitnum v. Emons
683 F. App'x 71
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant L. “Lee” Whitnum, proceeding pro se, challenged actions by Connecticut state judge Jane B. Emons and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The district court dismissed Whitnum’s § 1983 complaint sua sponte and later denied her motion for reconsideration.
- Whitnum appealed the dismissal and the denial of reconsideration; the Second Circuit reviewed whether the orders were final and concluded they were.
- The district court found Judge Emons entitled to absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in her judicial capacity.
- The court also held Emons’ report of Whitnum for stalking was not state action, precluding a § 1983 claim for that conduct.
- Whitnum’s request to remove Judge Emons under Article III was rejected because state courts are not bound by Article III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of orders on appeal | Whitnum pursued appeal; implicitly contends orders are reviewable | Appellees argued jurisdiction limited to denial of reconsideration | Orders are final; appeal proper because Whitnum forwent amendment and time to amend passed |
| Sufficiency of § 1983 complaint | Whitnum alleged judicial misconduct and stalking report created liability | Defendants argued complaint failed to state a plausible § 1983 claim | Complaint dismissed for failing to plead plausible § 1983 claim under Twombly/Iqbal standards |
| Judicial immunity for Judge Emons | Whitnum contended judicial actions were not immune due to alleged misconduct | Defendants argued absolute judicial immunity for acts within judicial capacity | Judge Emons entitled to absolute immunity; dismissal proper |
| State-action for reporting stalking | Whitnum argued reporting constituted state action under color of law | Defendants maintained the report was private/non-state conduct | Reporting not under color of state law; § 1983 claim cannot be based on purely private conduct |
| Article III removal argument | Whitnum sought removal of judge under Article III | Defendants argued Article III does not bind state courts | Request failed; state courts are not bound by Article III |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must permit reasonable inference of defendant's liability)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (scope of judicial immunity)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state action requirement for § 1983)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (distinguishing private conduct from state action)
- Asarco, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) (state courts not bound by Article III)
- Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming scope of judicial immunity)