UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
July 9, 2010
JOHN A. ROBINSON, JR. PLAINTIFF,
TOWN OF BETHLEHEM POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHAD A. RICE; MICHAEL S. WHITELEY; CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, TOWN OF BETHLEHEM JUSTICE COURT; RYAN T. DONOVAN; RENE Z. MERGES; DAVID N. GOLDIN, ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND TOWN OF BETHLEHEM, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Homer U.S. Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
In compliance with this court's order, plaintiff John A. Robinson ("Robinson" or "plaintiff") filed an amended complaint. Docket No. 5. Robinson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his constitutional rights by the named defendants. A review of the amended complaint reveals that the amended complaint may be filed.
I. Defendant Hon. Ryan T. Donovan
One of the named defendants in the complaint is Town of Bethlehem Justice Ryan T. Donovan. Plaintiff asserts allegations of judicial misconduct by Judge Donovan. See Compl. at pp 5, 12-13. For the reasons stated below, the claims against Judge Donovan should be dismissed from Robinson's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and N.D.N.Y.L.R. Rule 5.4(a).
Section 1915(e), as amended, directs that the Court:
(2) [S]hall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
(B) the action ... (I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
"Judges enjoy absolute immunity from personal liability for 'acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.'" Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994) (emphasis added) (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)). "The absolute immunity of a judge applies however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff." Young, 41 F.3d at 51 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims against Judge Robinson should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the claims against Town Judge Ryan T. Donovan be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and N.D.N.Y.L.R. 5.4(a); and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk shall issue summonses and a General Order 25 and forward them, along with copies of the complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the defendants; and it is further
ORDERED that a response to the complaint be filed by defendants or their counsel as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after service of process on defendants; and it is further
ORDERED that any paper sent by a party to the Court or the Clerk must be accompanied by a certificate showing the date that a true and correct copy of same was mailed to all opposing parties or their counsel. Any document received by the Court or the Clerk that does not include a proper certificate of service will be returned without processing by the Clerk. Plaintiff must comply with requests by the Clerk's Office for any documents that are necessary to maintain this action. All parties must comply with Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District of New York in filing motions. Plaintiff is also required to promptly notify the Clerk's Office and all parties or their counsel of any change in his address; his failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action; and it is further
ORDERED that all motions shall comply with the Local Rules of Practice of the Northern District; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order and General Order 25 on plaintiff by regular mail.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14) within which to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993); Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C §636(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.