The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant moves (Dkt. No. 21) to dismiss this pro se action on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). As set forth below, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the action with prejudice.
In his amended complaint (Dkt. No. 13), plaintiff claims as follows: On or about August 17, 2004 the plaintiff appeared in Albany City Court for arraignment for 3rd degree assault. Five to six days later, during August, 2004, the plaintiff appeared in front of Judge William Carter. During plaintiff's appearance he was accompanied by his attorney who made it known to the court and D.A. that the D.A. failed to convert the complaint within the 5 day requirement and thus, the plaintiff should be released. Subsequently, Judge Carter sided with the D.A. and plaintiff was remanded [a]lthough the law stipulated that if the D.A. failed to convert the complaint, that the plaintiff would be released on his own recognizance.
The plaintiff avers that he was denied an inherent liberty and that Judge Carter was privy to this during the time he denied plaintiff this liberty.
On or about November 22, 2004, the plaintiff appeared in front of Judge Carter due to a letter plaintiff wrote citing the denial of due process by the court and the D.A. Judge Carter summoned plaintiff to court wherein plaintiff appeared pro se. A copy of this letter was also sent to the D.A. and mayor. On this day while arguing his position in front of Judge Carter, Judge Carter attempted to circumvent his and the D.A.'s
wrongdoing by attempting to re-arraign the plaintiff. When plaintiff refuted the actions of the judge, he became enraged, jumped up, threw of[f] his robe and entered into open court intending to assault the plaintiff, by running towards plaintiff screaming: "you want a piece of me!" The plaintiff was handcuffed and sha[ckl]ed during this time. If it wasn't for the actions of the two officers, one who blocked the judge and the other that got me out of harm's way, plaintiff contends that he would have been assaulted. Plaintiff alleges that the actions of the Judge shocked the plaintiff's conscience due to the fact that the actions of the judge were not provoked in any way by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is alleging that Judge Carter acted outside of the scope of his official duties and obligations and displayed deliberate indifference towards the plaintiff.
It was only after a lone witness reported the incident and a news paper article was written did anyone take action. The Mayor, District Attorney, Public Defender, nor police reported the acts of Judge Carter. Several months later, the Judge was censured by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Two Judges on the panel voted to have Judge Carter removed.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Judge Carter violated plaintiff's 14th amendment right of Equal Protection by treating plaintiff differently by attempting to assault plaintiff during the course of a court proceeding.
Judge Carter violated plaintiff's Substantive Due Process (14th Amendment) by conducting himself in an outrageous and shocking manner, contrary to ...