Case Information
483 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY IS PERMITTED AND GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ A PARTY CITING TO SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term United States Appeals Second Circuit, held at Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Foley Square, City th day November, two thousand sixteen. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________ Individually as
50% Shareholder, Officer Director
1st Choice Realty, Inc.,
Plaintiff Appellant No. Grow, Individual
Official Capacity, then Justice,
Defendant Appellee .*
_____________________________________
* directed amend caption set forth above.
FOR APPELLANT : LBERT G. F RACCOLA , J R ., pro se , New Hartford, NY. APPELLEE : J ONATHAN D. H ITSOUS Assistant Solicitor General
(Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, on the brief ), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the of New Albany, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the District for the Northern District of York (Mae A. D’Agostino, Judge
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED that the judgment is VACATED and the case REMANDED
order of pro se, appeals from the Court’s of his and state law claims against former Justice Grow. Fraccola alleged that Justice violated rights by so ‐ ordering a stipulated settlement that resolved a business dispute between Fraccola and Fraccola’s ex ‐ wife. sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief arising out Justice Grow’s ordering the settlement. We assume the parties’ familiarity the facts, prior proceedings, and issues on appeal, which refer only necessary explain our decision and remand.
Upon review, that the dismissed claims under the Rooker Feldman doctrine. Under doctrine, requirements must be met order claim be barred: (1) the plaintiff must have in state (2) plaintiff must complain judgment; (3) plaintiff must invite district rejection judgment; (4) must have been rendered before proceedings commenced. Hoblock Albany Cty. Bd. Elections, *3 Cir. 2005). This meets each requirements: he alleges directly ordered stipulation; he seeks to overturn stipulation subsequent orders upholding it; he filed complaint July 2015, after denial final motion to vacate was affirmed January 2015. The therefore applied dismiss claims. precludes matter subject matter jurisdiction. Cir. 2004). When lacks jurisdiction, it lacks power dismiss prejudice, did here. Hernandez Conriv Realty Assocs., 1999). For reason, remand permit dismiss without prejudice. considered all arguments they are without
merit. Accordingly, VACATE REMAND COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
[1] interpret memorandum decision dismissing claims resting alternative on judicial immunity grounds. Because implicates jurisdiction Court, see 2004), doctrine’s application should been analyzed first dispositive.