Yardeny v. Agate, 1:22-cv-07875

Pro se plaintiff Yacov Yardeny sued New York Supreme Court Justice Augustus Agate under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging events from a 2006 state-court matter: alleged failure to serve a notice of default and failure to request evidence in a proof-of-claims proceeding.
Yardeny sought declaratory relief and was granted in forma pauperis status for filing.
The district court conducted screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and treated the complaint liberally due to Yardeny’s pro se status.
The court held that claims based on judicial acts are barred by absolute judicial immunity for retrospective relief unless the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction; no such allegation was plausible here.
Because immunity and the nature of the claims could not be cured by repleading, the court found amendment futile and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for appeal; the Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial immunity	Yardeny contends Agate’s procedural omissions violated due process	Agate’s rulings were judicial acts entitled to absolute immunity	Court: Absolute immunity bars retrospective relief; no plausible allegation of action in clear absence of jurisdiction
Failure to state a §1983 claim under §1915 screening	Yardeny alleges a due-process violation actionable under §1983	Complaint fails to state a cognizable §1983 claim because it attacks judicial acts shielded by immunity	Court: Complaint fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal under §1915(e)(2)(B)
Leave to amend (pro se lenity)	Pro se status counsels liberal leave to amend	Amendment would be futile because immunity is dispositive	Court: Denied leave to amend; dismissal with prejudice as amendment cannot cure defects
IFP for appeal / good-faith certificate	Yardeny requested in forma pauperis treatment	Court must certify appealability and good-faith basis	Court: Appeal not taken in good faith; IFP denied for appeal

Tulloch v. Coughlin, 50 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1995) (recognizing absolute judicial immunity for judges in performance of judicial functions)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity bars suits for actions within judicial role absent clear absence of jurisdiction)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (scope of judicial immunity and protection for judges’ judicial acts)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are to be construed liberally)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (leave to amend generally required for pro se plaintiffs unless futile)
Tocker v. Philip Morris Cos., 470 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2006) (amendment may be denied when it would be futile)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for finding an appeal is not taken in good faith)