Gross v. Rell
| Decision Date | 20 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 3:06CV01703(AWT). |
| Citation | 485 F.Supp.2d 72 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Daniel GROSS, Plaintiff, v. M. Jodi RELL, Governor, State of Connecticut, et al., Defendants. |
John C. Peters, West Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.
Clare E. Kindall, Jacqueline S. Hoell, Attorney General's Office, Louis B. Blumenfeld, Cooney, Scully & Dowling, Hartford, CT, Francis J. Grady, Grady & Riley, Waterbury, CT, Anthony Nuzzo, Jr., James R. Fiore, Nadine M. Pare, Robert J. Johnson, Nuzzo & Roberts, Cheshire, CT, Bonnie L. Patten, Kevin Shepherd Budge, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, CT, for Defendants.
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST JUDGE THOMAS P. BRUNNOCK
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), defendant probate judge Thomas P. Brunnock ("Brunnock") moves to dismiss all claims against him as barred by absolute judicial immunity. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is being granted.
The court takes the facts as alleged in the complaint as true for purposes of this motion. On or about June 28, 2005, the plaintiff, Daniel Gross, was an 86-year-old man who was convalescing at his daughter's home in Waterbury, Connecticut, after being discharged from a New York hospital for treatment of a leg infection on June 25, 2005. On August 8, 2005, the plaintiff was admitted to Waterbury Hospital because of continuing problems. After the plaintiff remained there for nine days, an employee of Waterbury Hospital filed an application for the appointment of a conservator for the plaintiff with the Waterbury probate court. Brunnock, an attorney and the elected probate court judge for Waterbury, appointed Attorney Jonathan C. Newman as counsel for the plaintiff and issued a notice of hearing on August 25, 2005. The plaintiff alleges that the notice was improperly served but concedes that Attorney Newman met with the plaintiff prior to the September 1, 2005 hearing.
On September 1, 2005, Brunnock issued a "standard form" probate decree, finding that (i) notice was given; (ii) the respondent was unable to request or obtain counsel and counsel was appointed for him; (iii) the plaintiff resided or had domicile in the probate district and that the court had jurisdiction; and (iv) the plaintiff was incapable of managing his affairs or caring for himself by reason of dementia.
Brunnock appointed Attorney Kathleen Donovan as conservator and did not require a bond. At the request of Conservator Donovan, Brunnock issued two orders, one on November 3, 2005, and the other on May 1, 2006, restricting visits by the plaintiff's daughter. Finally, Brunnock granted the conservator's application to sell the plaintiff's home in Long Island.
None of these orders were appealed. However, on July 12, 2006, the Connecticut Superior Court granted a writ of habeas corpus voiding the conservatorship, finding that the probate court lacked jurisdiction at the time the conservator was appointed because the plaintiff was neither a resident nor a domiciliary of the state of Connecticut.
When considering a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draws inferences from those allegations in the light favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Easton v. Sundram, 947, F.2d 1011, 1014-15 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 911, 112 S.Ct. 1943, 118 L.Ed.2d 548 (1992). The function of a motion to dismiss is "to assess the legal feasibility of the complaints not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof." Ryder Energy Distribution Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir.1984). Dismissal is warranted when, under any set of facts that the plaintiff can prove consistent with the allegations, it is clear that no relief can be granted. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Frasier v. General Electric Co., 930 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir. 1991). A complaint should be dismissed if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
The U.S. Supreme Court has established a two-part test for evaluating claims of absolute judicial immunity. First, a judge is immune only for actions performed in his or her judicial capacity; and second, judges are subject to liability only when they have acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 360-63, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); see also Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991).
The principle of judicial immunity recognizes that a judge may make mistakes, but holds that "it is better for a judge when exercising the discretion inherent in his judicial power `to risk some error and possible injury from such error than not to decide or act at all.'" Green v. Maraio, 722 F.2d 1013, 1017 (2d Cir.1983) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 242, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)). "A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors." Stump, 435 U.S. at 359, 98 S.Ct. 1099 (internal citations omitted). "Because `some of the most difficult and embarrassing questions which a judicial officer is called upon to consider and determine relate to his jurisdiction ...,' the scope of the judge's jurisdiction must be construed broadly when the issue is the immunity of the judge." Id. at 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099 ).
In Stump, the court clarified the difference between an "excess of jurisdiction" and "the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter" as follows:
Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible. But where jurisdiction over the subject-matter is invested by law in the judge, or in the court which he holds, the manner and extent in which the jurisdiction shall be exercised are generally as much questions for his determination as any other questions involved in the case, although upon the correctness of his determination in these particulars the validity of his judgments may depend.
Stump, 435 U.S. at 356 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 1099 (citing Bradley, 80 U.S. at 351, 80 U.S. 335). Thus absolute immunity protects a judicial action unless the action was "manifestly or palpably beyond" the court's authority. Root v. Liston, 444 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2006). Moreover, absolute judicial immunity is not pierced by allegations of bad faith or malice. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286.
Here, the plaintiff contends that defendant Brunnock acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. He also contends that Brunnock is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from asserting absolute judicial immunity as a defense.
The plaintiff is suing Brunnock for actions he took in his judicial capacity, including appointing counsel for the plaintiff, ruling that he was in need of a conservator, appointing a conservator, and ruling that the plaintiff's house could be sold to pay bills. None of these actions are outside the scope of function of a probate court judge. See Collins v. West Hartford Police Dept., 380 F.Supp.2d 83, 90 (D.Conn.2005) ().
The plaintiff contends that Brunnock acted in "clear absence of all jurisdiction." He argues (1) that he was, and is, a New York resident, and therefore Brunnock lacked any jurisdiction over him; (2) that judicial immunity does not protect courts of limited jurisdiction to the extent it protects courts of general jurisdiction; (3) that probate courts lack jurisdiction to issue orders regarding visitation; and (4) that Brunnock made procedural errors and was motivated by a desire to generate probate fees. The court addresses these arguments in turn.
The fact that the plaintiff was, and is, a New York resident would not show that Brunnock acted in "clear absence of all jurisdiction." An application for the appointment of an involuntary conservator is to be filed "in the court of probate in the district in which the respondent resides or has his domicile." Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-648 (a). For a place to be one's domicile, one must intend to make the place a home permanently or indefinitely. Smith v. Smith, 174 Conn. 434, 439, 389 A.2d 756 (1978); Adame v. Adame, 154 Conn. 389, 391, 225 A.2d 188 (1966). A person may simultaneously have two or more residences but only one domicile at any one time. Smith, 174 Conn. at 439, 389 A.2d 756; Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 621, 362 A.2d 795 (1975). By way of contrast, a person may have a residence in a place in which he or she intends to live only temporarily. A resident of a place is one who is an actual stated dweller in that place, as distinguished from a transient dweller, and he may have a domicile elsewhere. Don v. Don, 142 Conn. 309, 311, 114 A.2d 203 (1955).
Here, the plaintiff was living with his daughter in Waterbury, Connecticut. He was admitted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. Rodgers
...for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”); Gross v. Rell, 485 F.Supp.2d 72, 76 (D.Conn.2007); King v. Rell, No. 3:06-cv-1703(VLB), 2008 WL 793207, at *4 (D.Conn. March 24, 2008). Judicial immunity is also not pierced by......
-
Gallaher v. U.S. Bank Nat'Lass'N
...of showing that the issue whose relitigation he seeks to foreclose was actually decided in the first proceeding." Gross v. Rell, 485 F. Supp. 2d 72, 78 (D. Conn. 2007) (quoting Windsor Locks Assocs. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 90 Conn. App. 242, 252, 876 A.2d 614, 620-21 (Conn. App. Ct. 20......
-
Williams v. Williams
..."is not identical to a finding that there was a clear absence of all jurisdiction, the judicial immunity standard"); Gross v. Rell, 485 F. Supp. 2d 72, 79 (D. Conn. 2007) ("A finding of no jurisdiction is quite different from a finding of a clear absence of all jurisdiction."). Plaintiff ha......
-
Gladstein v. Goldfield
...and (2) it also must have been actually decided[,] and (3) the decision must have been necessary to the judgment.'" Gross v. Rell, 485 F. Supp. 2d 72, 78-79 (D. Conn.2007), aff'd in part, question certified, 585 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2009), certified question answered, 304 Conn. 234 (2012) (quot......