Hudson v. Forman
| Decision Date | 17 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-11192 (VB) |
| Parties | ROBERT HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. PETER FORMAN, Dutchess County Judge; MICHAEL HAYES, Dutchess County Supreme Court Surrogate's Judge; THE DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK; THOMAS ANGELL, Dutchess County Public Defender, Attorney; DUTCHESS COUNTY ATTORNEY; THE COUNTY OF DUTCHESS; DUTCHESS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action alleging Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff paid the filing fee to initiate this action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the complaint.
The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee, if it determines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). A claim is "frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court is obliged, however to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest," Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
The following facts can be ascertained from Plaintiff Robert Hudson's 123-page amended complaint, which is not a model of clarity. In 1979, Plaintiff purchased real property at a Dutchess County "Delinquent Tax Land Sale." (ECF No. 11, at 5.) Plaintiff's land abuts a parcel of land owned by the Varney family. Plaintiff's parcel is land-locked, but the Varney property can be accessed by Hicks Hill Road. (Id. at 75.) Plaintiff has had an ongoing dispute with the Varneys for decades, and has been involved in numerous civil and criminal proceedings in Dutchess County related to the property.
A 2017 order from the Dutchess County Supreme Court, which Plaintiff attaches to the amended complaint, sets out the following litigation history. (See ECF No. 11, at 75-78]
In 1984, the Varney family sued Plaintiff in Dutchess County Supreme Court for trespass. Varney v. Hudson, Index No. 2300/1984. Judge Beisner rejected Plaintiff's claim that he had an easement over the Varney property based on the original land grant, and granted the Varneys' application to permanently enjoin Plaintiff from trespassing on their property. On August 16, 1989, Pine Plains Town Judge George L. Tenore found Plaintiff guilty of trespass and directed him to "strictly adhere" to the December 21, 1984 order enjoining him from trespassing on the Varney property.
On October 26, 1989, Plaintiff was again charged with trespass. He again argued that the original land grant, issued in the mid-1700s, entitled him to an easement over the Varneys'property. Following expert testimony refuting Plaintiff's easement claim, the jury convicted him, and Judge Tenore sentenced him to three years' probation, with a special condition prohibiting Plaintiff from trespassing on the Varney property.
On August 31, 1990, Plaintiff commenced an action, Hudson v. Varney, Index No. 3717/1990, seeking a declaration that he benefitted from an easement over the Varney property. On July 18, 1991, Judge Jiudice granted the Varneys' motion to dismiss, holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred Plaintiff from relitigating his easement claim. The Appellate Division affirmed. Hudson v. Varney, 196 A.D.2d 856 (2d Dep't 1993). Plaintiff continued to be arrested for trespassing on the Varney property. In 2017, the Town Court of the Town of Amenia convicted Plaintiff of criminal trespass in the third degree.
In March 2017, Plaintiff filed an application to establish a private road across the Varney property, pursuant to Highway Law § 300's private condemnation provisions.
On May 15, 2017, Amenia Town Judge Norman Moore sentenced Plaintiff to 90 days' incarceration and issued a final order of protection prohibiting Plaintiff from entering the Varney property.
On July 2, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus to require the Town of Pine Plains to grant his petition for a private road.
Plaintiff brings this current action regarding another criminal prosecution in the Dutchess County Court. On October 23, 2019, a jury in the Dutchess County Court convicted Plaintiff ofcriminal mischief in the second degree, two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, and one count of criminal contempt in the second degree.1
Plaintiff alleges that Dutchess County Judge Peter Forman, who presided over Plaintiff's 2019 criminal trial, deprived him of his right to assert certain defenses and to introduce evidence at trial. Plaintiff asserts that he "was not allowed any witnesses," was "not allowed to speak of any road," to submit a tax map, "or to submit Defendant's deeds or to speak of any defense by title, or adverse possession of the" road that he claimed a right to use. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Forman denied his request for an extension of time to subpoena witnesses and prepare for trial. (Id. at 13.)
Plaintiff states that, "on or about the 21 of May 2017,"2 he was ordered to appear before Dutchess County Surrogate Judge Michael G. Hayes3 in connection with "[c]riminal case 00136." (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that the court assigned him a new public defender and Judge Hayes "ordered [Plaintiff] not to file any documents in the Dutchess County Criminal Court Case 00136 without first having approval of the Public Defender." (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff further alleges that his court-appointed attorney, Thomas Angell from the Dutchess County Public Defender's office, "denied Robert Hudson the right to sign Robert Hudson's 9 subpoenas; to have defendants 9 witnesses subpoenaed to court to testify against the charge of trespass by adverse possession." (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff also sues the Dutchess County Clerk (Bradford Kendall). His sole allegation against the Clerk appears to be that the Clerk refused to sign a summons in Plaintiff's Dutchess County Supreme Court action. (Id. at 20.)
Plaintiff seeks money damages.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a "state actor." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).
As Plaintiff has repeatedly been advised, judges are absolutely immune from suit for damages for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Generally, "acts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before the judge are considered judicial in nature." Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 210 (2d Cir. 2009). "Even allegations of bad faith or malice cannot overcome judicial immunity." Id. (citations omitted). This is because "[w]ithout insulation from liability, judges would be subject to harassment and intimidation . . . ." Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994).
This immunity also applies to government officials for their acts that assist a judge in the performance of his or her judicial duties. See Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985); Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d Cir. 1999); Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37, 39-40 (2d Cir. 1988). In the State of New York, a County Clerk's duties include those of a state-court clerk. See N.Y. Const. Art. VI, § 6(e); N.Y. County Law § 525(1); Olmstead v. Meahl, 219 N.Y. 270, 275 (1916); Ashland Equities Co. v. Clerk of N.Y. Cty., 110 A.D. 2d 60, 61-64 (1st Dep't 1985); see also Diaz v. Pataki, 368 F. Supp. 2d 265, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Ashland Equities Co.,110 A.D. 2d at 63) ( that the Bronx County Clerk's "'primary function' is to 'serve as clerk of the Supreme Court' of Bronx County, a state court"), aff'd sub nom., Diaz v. Paterson, 547 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Judges Forman and Hayes arise from their decisions while presiding over Plaintiff's state-court criminal and civil actions. The judges' decisions are therefore judicial acts for which they are immune from suit under § 1983.
Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the Dutchess County Clerk arise from the Clerk's alleged refusal to sign a summons in Plaintiff's civil case in the Dutchess County Supreme Court. This falls within the scope of the Clerk's judicial responsibilities, and the Clerk is therefore immune from suit under § 1983 for this action. See Coleman v. Farnsworth, 90 F. App'x 313, 317 (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished opinion) (); see also Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 66 (2d Cir. 1997) ().
Moreover, Plaintiff has previously brought the same or similar claims, which have been rejected. See Hudson v. Forman, ECF 7:19-CV-1830, 20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2019) ( that Dutchess County Clerk...
To continue reading
Request your trial