The opinion of the court was delivered by: I. LEO GLASSER
GLASSER, United States District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Dennis Levy commenced this action by filing a Complaint on September 8, 1993. Plaintiff has named as defendants the Honorable Alfred Lerner and the Honorable Charles Thomas, Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County (collectively the "State Justices"), as well as Richard Brown, the Queens County District Attorney, and Richard Shanley
and John Doe, Assistant District Attorneys in Queens County (collectively the "District Attorney defendants"). The State Justices and the District Attorney defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss; for the reasons described below, both motions are granted.
A. The Underlying State Criminal Proceeding
For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the following allegations in the Amended Complaint will be accepted as true. In January 1993, plaintiff, an African American, was indicted on two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree under Queens County Indictment number 5853/92. Am. Compl. P 8. Justice Lerner, the judge alleged to be "responsible for the administration of the Queens Supreme Court," Am. Compl. P 3, assigned Justice Thomas to preside over the prosecution of the plaintiff. Am. Compl. P 10. Richard Brown is alleged to have assigned Assistant District Attorneys ("ADAs") Shanley and Doe to prosecute the case. Am. Compl. P 8.
Plaintiff alleges that he appeared before Justice Thomas in January 1993, at which time ADA Shanley requested that bail be set at $ 100,000 and plaintiff asked for lower bail or to be released on his own recognizance; Justice Thomas set bail at $ 40,000. Am. Compl. P 11. Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, Am. Compl. P 9, thereafter submitted a pro se motion for reduction of bail, which Justice Thomas denied. Am. Compl. P 12. In February 1993, Justice Thomas granted plaintiff's motion for a Wade hearing. Am. Compl. P 13. Justice Thomas ultimately denied plaintiff's motion to suppress an "eyewitness identification" of plaintiff, and allegedly made no determination with respect to plaintiff's allegations that the District Attorney defendants had refused to disclose basic Rosario materials. Am. Compl. PP 13-15. Plaintiff also alleges that his attorney's representation was deficient -- for example, his cross-examination of the eyewitness made a "farce and mockery of the defense" -- but that Justice Thomas nonetheless denied his motion for reassignment of counsel made in April 1993. Am. Compl. PP 14, 16.
Plaintiff claims that on June 10, 1993, he testified at a pretrial hearing that he was suffering from a mental disease or defect caused by cocaine addiction, and that he requested a psychiatric examination; Justice Thomas denied the motion. Am. Compl. P 16. On June 15, he moved "to be allowed to take the affirmative defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to C.P.L. 220.15.," which motion ADA Doe opposed; Justice Thomas denied this motion, as well. Am. Compl. P 17. That same day, Justice Thomas conducted a competency hearing, at which he allegedly deliberately "failed to seek a determination of plaintiffs [sic] recollection of crimes so as to be able to assist in his own defense." Am. Compl. P 18.
Plaintiff now alleges that the above-described actions by defendants violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law. Specifically, for his first cause of action, plaintiff claims that Justice Thomas's denial of his various motions (and presumably the District Attorney defendants' opposition to those motions) was motivated by racial animus, and that Justice Thomas would have granted reasonable bail, granted the motion for reassignment of counsel, granted an alternative to incarceration and imposed a lesser sentence if he were a similarly situated white American. Am. Compl. PP 26-29. Plaintiff further claims that defendants have a history of discriminating against African Americans in this manner, and that this pattern of discrimination has led to a "gross disparity" between the numbers of African Americans and white Americans in pretrial detention and prison. Am. Compl. PP 26-29.
For his second cause of action, plaintiff claims that by denying his discovery and suppression motions, defendants
engaged in a conspirancy [sic] to withhold Rosario materials from the plaintiff for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice entitled to the plaintiff because he is black with the intention of denying the plaintiff the equal protection and due process of the law or were aware of such a conspiracy and have the power to prevent the ...