Baker v. New York State Executives and Officers et al, No. 1:2012cv01090 - Document 9 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Defts' 5 Motion to Dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/20/2012) c/m with unpublished decisions by chambers. Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RALPH BAKER, Plaintiffs. -against- MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 12 Civ. 1090 (BMC)(LB) NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVES and OFFICERS, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK STATE, NYS UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRA TlON; SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants. -- -- ---------- ---- --- ----- -------- --- ---------- ------- ----- X COGAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Ralph Baker, proceeding prose, brings this action seeking damages and injunctive re1iefagainst the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the New York State Unified Court S}stem, the Office of Court Administration, and unnamed "executives and officers" of those agencies. 1 Defendants have moved to dismiss, and plaintiff has filed opposition. The motion is granted for the reasons set forth below. 1 Plaintiff is a frequent pw se liliganl in !hi; Court_ (E.D.N.Y. Aug_ 12, 20 11 ), Baker v_ Palaki el al ¢ No_ No. 11 Civ. 02800 BACKGROUN0 2 Plaintiff claims that at the arraignment and bail hearing on his indictment for grand larceny involving the use of false instrument>, he was ordered, on motion of his attorney. to submit to a mental health examination under New York Criminal Procedure law §730. Following the examination, the court held a competency hearing in which two examining psychiatrists testified that plaintiff was not competent to proceed to tria!. The court made a finding to that effect and entered an order of commitment confining plaintiff to the Kirby Psychiatric Center for a period of one year or until such time as he was deemed fit to stand trial. He remained there for nine months until the facility determined that he was competent. Plaintill then appeared in court and was released on his own recognizance, subject to certain order> of protection that required him to stay away from a building that was related to his indictment. He then violated those orders of protection and was remanded. The record before me reflects that the criminal proceeding remains pending_ Read liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the complamt alleges a deprivation of due process. In essence, plaintiff contends that there were no grounds to order a mental health examination to begin with, and that there were certainly no grounds for holding him in a mental health facility. lie also alleges ineffective assistant of counsel. Plaintiff seeks at least $3,155,000 in compensatory damages, trebling of that damage award, and an injunction ordering the state court to remand him to Riker's Island, calendar his case within 24 hours, and expunge all record of his mental defect or disease. 3 In opposition to the motion to dismiss, 2 Plaintiff has all!lexed trl111scripts and other documents 10 his complamt, and defendants have annexed other documents referenced in plaintiff's complamt, which may be considered m determining defendants" motion to dismi>< See Halebian v Bl!rv. 644 F 3d 122. 131 n_ 7 (2d Cir_ 2011) 'The injunctive relief, other than expunging the mental health records, appears to be moot. 2 plaintiff modifies his requested relief to include his release from the New York City Department of Corrections. DISCUSSION The motion to dismiss must be granted for several reasons. First. the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits suilS for damages against the State and ilS judicial agencies. See Wi!l v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989} ("[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons' under§ 1983:). The Supreme Court of the State of New York and the Office of Court Administration are part of the New York State Unified Court System, which is unquestionably an "arm of the State" protected by the Eleventh Amendment. Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 368 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Woods v. Rondout Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. OfEduc., 466 F.3d 232,236 (2d Cir. 2006)); Canales-Jacobs v. New York State Office of Court Admin., 640 F.Supp.2d 482, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Plaintiff's complaint for damages must therefore be dismissed as against these entities. Plaintiff's remaining request for prospective injunctive relief, the expunging of his mental health records, is not subject to the Eleventh Amendment. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). However, plaintiff has failed to allege due process violations against these defendants. He does not point to anything constirntionally deficient on the face CPL §730.30. nor does he point to any lack of process in how it was applied to him. Considering plaintiff's pro se status, I have reviewed the state court proceedings to see if there is any colorable deprivation of process, and there is not. There were more than ample grounds for both plaintiff's criminal attorney and the state court to be concerned about his fitness to stand trial, thus proposing and ordering, respectively, the examination, and two psychiatrist;. found that those concerns were valid. Plaintiff simply disagrees with the conclusion of the psychiatrists and the court that he 3 was not fit to stand trial. Due proces~ entitled plaintiff to notice and a hearing regarding his pretrial confinement; it did not require a resolution in his favor. Cf. Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 104 S.Ct. 2403 (1984) (upholding provisions of New York's Family Court Act a:; to pretrial detention, which has similar due process protections). To the extent plaintiff intends to assert claims against the judges involved in his state court proceedings, his claim fails due to judicial immunity. The transcripts of the proceedings reveal that the judges were acting precisely within their judicial capacity in entering the orders that they did, and thus cannot be ~ued for having entered those orders. It is firmly established that "[i]udges have t:raditionally enjoyed absolute immunity for damages arising out of judicial acts performed in their judicial capabilities." Rios v. Third Precinct Bay Shore, No. 08---CV4641 (JFB)(ETB), 2009 WL 2601303, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2009) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, (1991)). The only exception is when a judge acts in a non-judicial capacity or enters orders that are beyond his jurisdiction. Waco, 502 U.S. at 11-12. In addition, 'judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice. ."Waco, at 11. (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967). Plaintiff additionally appears to complain about his attorney at the arraignment, although he has not named that attorney in the caption. Even assuming hi~ attorney was appointed by the court (as seems highly likely), plaintiff cannot assert a claim against him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he is not considered a state actor. See Pecou v. Ilirschfeld, No. 07-cv-5449 (SJF). 2008 WL 957919, at ¢2 ("Court-appointed attorneys do not act under color of state law merely by virtue of their appointment.") (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981 )). Finally, plaintiffs demand to be released from the custody of the New York City Department of Corrections, which he makes in his opposition the motion to dismiss, is not 4 cognizable under§ 1983. Requests for release from custody must be brought under the narrow remedy available in federal habeas corpus, not through a damage action. See Preiser v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). CONCLUSION Defendants' motion to di~miss is granted and the complaint is dismissed. SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York June20,2012 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
