Brown v. Trust

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x

KIM M. BROWN,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER

22-CV-6852(EK)(AYS)

-against-

ALAN S. TRUST, NEIL ACKERMAN,

KENNETH L. BAUM, SARA C. TEMES,

BARBARA L. SENIAWSKI,

DIANE L. BECKMANN, SCOTT BERNSTEIN,

LALITHA M. VASUDEVAN, JOHN B. BLACK,

and CHARLES K. KINZER,

Defendants.

------------------------------------x

ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Kim Brown brings this action pro se,

alleging various tort violations arising from proceedings in the

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New

York. In April 2018, Brown filed a Chapter 7 voluntary

bankruptcy proceeding, which is pending before Chief Judge Alan

Trust. See In re Kim Brown, No. 18-72291 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.).

Approximately two weeks later, Brown filed an adversary

complaint against various defendants, including the United

States Department of Education, seeking the discharge of her

student loans from Columbia University. Now, Brown alleges that

the defendants here — Chief Judge Trust; certain attorneys

representing defendants in the adversary proceeding, including

Assistant United States Attorney Diane Leonardo, who represents

the Department of Education; the Chapter 7 trustee; and certain

Columbia professors — corrupted those proceedings and infringed

her rights.1 Brown seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief,

including the award of her doctoral degree from Teachers

College, Columbia’s graduate school of education. As set forth

below, Brown’s claims against Chief Judge Trust and Leonardo are

dismissed sua sponte.

Discussion

Judges are immune from suit for acts taken in their

judicial capacity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).

This immunity may be pierced only when a judge acts outside the

judicial function or in the “complete absence” of jurisdiction.

Id. at 11-12. Even allegations of malice or corruption are

insufficient to overcome this immunity. Id. at 11. When

judicial immunity applies, the Court may, on its own, dismiss

the complaint “without affording a hearing or other notice of

dismissal,” notwithstanding whether the plaintiff has paid a

filing fee. Rolle v. Shields, No. 16-CV-2487, 2016 WL 3093898,

at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2016) (sua sponte dismissal of complaint

for which the plaintiff paid a filing fee), aff’d, No. 16-2307,

1 The complaint mistakenly identifies Ms. Leonardo as “Diane L.

Beckmann.” See Pl. Diane C. Leonardo’s Pre-Motion Letter 1, ECF No. 22.

2017 WL 6759305 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2017); see also Tapp v.

Champagne, 164 F. App’x 106, 108 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming sua

sponte dismissal of claims — brought without payment of a filing

fee — against judges protected by absolute immunity).

Brown’s claims against Chief Judge Trust arise from

actions that he took in connection with Brown’s Chapter 7 and

adversary proceedings. Brown contends, for example, that Chief

Judge Trust “failed to process [her] motions for default

judgment,” improperly permitted Kenneth Baum to be “added as a

defendant in the adversary proceeding,” and “knowingly

accept[ed] false debt claims in the bankruptcy matter.”

Verified Compl. ¶¶ 45, 50, 53, ECF No. 1-1. Chief Judge Trust

is entitled to absolute immunity from suit for the alleged

conduct and thus must be dismissed from this action.

Absolute immunity also shields Assistant United States

Attorney Leonardo from this suit. Government attorneys are

absolutely immune for actions taken when defending civil suits

in court. Spear v. Town of W. Hartford, 954 F.2d 63, 66

(2d Cir. 1992). This immunity attaches to a government

attorney’s “function, not to the manner in which he performed

it.” Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565, 573 (2d Cir.

1986). For this reason, whether the government attorney

“engaged in questionable or harmful conduct during the course of

his representation . . . is irrelevant.” Id.

Here, Brown’s claims against Leonardo relate to

Leonardo’s defense of the Department of Education in the

adversary proceeding. Brown contends that Leonardo “sabotag[ed]

[Brown’s] right to student loan relief” by, among other things,

“blocking [Brown’s] borrower defense claim” and “stall[ing]”

Brown’s motion for default judgment. Verified Compl. ¶¶ 41, 79,

87. Brown further contends that Leonardo “engage[d] in fraud

upon the court and bribery.” Id. ¶ 45. Notwithstanding Brown’s

contentions that Leonardo engaged in misconduct, Leonardo’s

alleged actions are protected by immunity. See Green v. Maurin,

No. 15-CV-3967, 2015 WL 4249205, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2015)

(sua sponte dismissing claims against assistant United States

Attorney for actions he took in defending a civil action,

including alleged perjury); cf. Dory v. Ryan, 25 F.3d 81, 83

(2d Cir. 1994) (explaining that absolute immunity protects a

prosecutor “for virtually all acts,” including “allegedly

conspiring to present false evidence at a criminal trial”).

Accordingly, Leonardo must be dismissed from this action.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Chief Judge Alan Trust and

Assistant United States Attorney Leonardo are dismissed from

this action.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee__________

ERIC KOMITEE

United States District Judge

Dated: April 26, 2023

Brooklyn, New York