Gu v. Zeng

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

FEIFEI GU,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER

23-CV-4168(EK)(LB)

-against-

HONGYI ZENG, also known as HARRY

ZENG,

Defendant.

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

FEIFEI GU,

Plaintiff,

23-CV-4569(EK)(LB)

-against-

SERGIO JIMENEZ,

Defendant.

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

ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Feifei Gu filed these pro se actions in

response to a landlord-tenant holdover proceeding in Kings

County Housing Court that is slated for trial this month. She

names as defendants the petitioner-landlord and the judge

presiding over that state court matter. On June 20, Plaintiff

filed an emergency order to show cause for a preliminary

injunction and temporary restraining order in each action,

seeking, among other relief, a stay of the impending trial date.

The Court consolidates these actions solely for the purpose of

this Order. Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis

are granted. For the reasons discussed below, however,

Plaintiff’s complaints are dismissed, and her emergency requests

for injunctive relief are thus denied as moot.

Background

In Gu v. Zeng, No. 23-CV-4168, Plaintiff Gu asserts

violations of federal law in connection with a holdover

proceeding initiated by Zeng against her in Kings County Housing

Court under Index No. LT-325749-22/KI. See Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No.

1. Plaintiff asserts that, in the course of that action, Zeng

violated various federal statutes — primarily in the criminal

code — by making false statements, forging documents, and

committing perjury. Id. at ¶¶ 7–17. Plaintiff seeks Zeng’s

imprisonment and monetary damages.

In Gu v. Jimenez, No. 23-CV-4569, Gu alleges that the

judge presiding over her landlord-tenant action, Judge Sergio

Jimenez, has “distorted the facts,” refused her demand for a

jury trial, and improperly denied her motion to dismiss. See

Compl. ¶¶ 4–19, ECF No. 1. She again invokes statutes that

criminalize making false statements, forgery, and perjury as the

bases for her claims. Id. at ¶¶ 20–22. Plaintiff similarly

seeks monetary damages, and asks that Judge Jimenez be

“disbarred” and imprisoned.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court

must dismiss an in forma pauperis action that “(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.” At the pleading stage, “all well-

pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations” in the complaint are

assumed to be true. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621

F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010).1 Pro se complaints are held to

less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys,

and the Court will read a pro se complaint liberally and

interpret it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Sealed Plaintiff v.

Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008).

Still, a pro se plaintiff is not exempt from

“compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive

law.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983).

Furthermore, if the Court “determines at any time that it lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Henderson ex rel. Henderson v.

Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011).

1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order

accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal

quotation marks.

Discussion

In both cases, Plaintiff attempts to invoke this

Court’s jurisdiction by alleging that the defendant violated

various federal criminal statutes. Section 1331 grants a

federal court jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 1331; see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513

(2006) (“A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when

she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or

laws of the United States.”). A federal court, however, lacks

jurisdiction over a federal claim that “clearly appears to be

immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining

jurisdiction” or is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Steel

Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).

Here, Plaintiff states no valid federal claim. She

asserts claims arising under Title 18, Sections 471, 472, 1621,

and 1623 — federal statutes that criminalize “forgery” (i.e.,

counterfeiting) and perjury. “It is a truism, and has been for

many decades, that in our federal system crimes are always

prosecuted by the Federal Government, not . . . by private

complaints.” Conn. Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co., 457

F.2d 81, 86–87 (2d Cir. 1972); see Sheehy v. Brown, 335 F. App’x

102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[F]ederal criminal statutes do not

provide private causes of action.”). Plaintiff therefore cannot

assert civil claims based on these federal criminal statutes.

See, e.g., Hariprasad v. Master Holdings Inc., 788 F. App’x 783,

786 (2d Cir. 2019) (finding “no basis for implying a private

right of action” under Section 472 and affirming dismissal for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Ojeda v. Mendez, No. 20-

CV-3910, 2021 WL 66265, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021)

(dismissing claims brought under Section 471, among other

statutes); Faraldo v. Kessler, No. 8-CV-261, 2008 WL 216608, at

*6 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2008) (collecting cases and dismissing

claims brought under Sections 1621 and 1623). For the same

reason, Plaintiff cannot assert a private cause of action under

26 U.S.C. § 7206, a criminal provision of the Internal Revenue

Code. See Freedom Calls Found. v. Bukstel, No. 5-CV-5460, 2006

WL 845509, at *28 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2006) (“[T]here is no

private right of action available to [counterclaimant] under 26

U.S.C. § 7206.”).2

Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges claims arising from the

tenant holdover proceeding in state court and the actions taken

by the defendants in connection with that proceeding. Based on

2 Plaintiffs also has not demonstrated subject-matter jurisdiction based

on a diversity of citizenship. Under Section 1332, federal courts may

exercise jurisdiction over state law claims where the parties are citizens of

different states and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here,

Plaintiff indicates that she is a citizen of New York, and it appears that

each defendant is as well.

the allegations in the complaints, the Court lacks federal

jurisdiction over such landlord-tenant and related matters.

See, e.g., Johnson v. Ikezi, No. 20-CV-2792, 2021 WL 1091910, at

*2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021) (“[T]o the extent Plaintiffs seek

the Court’s intervention in a landlord-tenant proceeding, there

is . . . no basis for federal jurisdiction.”); Southerland v.

N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., No. 10-CV-5243, 2011 WL 73387, at *2

(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2011) (dismissing claims for wrongful eviction

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).3

Moreover, even if Plaintiff could assert private

causes of action here, her claims against Judge Jimenez would be

barred by absolute immunity. Judges are absolutely immune from

suit for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial

responsibilities, save for a few exceptions not applicable here.

See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (suits for money

damages); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (suits for injunctive relief).

“[A]cts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before

3 Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for emergency injunctive relief — to

stay the ongoing holdover proceeding in Kings County Housing Court — is

barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. Under that statute, “[a] court of the

United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State

court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary

in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28

U.S.C. § 2283. Courts in this Circuit have regularly applied the Anti-

Injunction Act in denying requests to enjoin state-court eviction

proceedings. See, e.g., Watkins v. Ceasar, 88 F. App’x 458, 459 (2d Cir.

2004); Sierra v. City of New York, 528 F. Supp. 2d 465, 467–69 (S.D.N.Y.

2008); Allen v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., No. 10-CV-168, 2010 WL 1644956, at *3

(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2010) (collecting cases).

the judge are considered judicial in nature.” Bliven v. Hunt,

579 F.3d 204, 210 (2d Cir. 2009). Here, the claims against

Judge Jimenez arise from decisions made during the state court

holdover proceeding and thus plainly fall within the scope of

his judicial capacity. As a result, such claims are barred by

judicial immunity. See, e.g., Herbert v. Devito, No. 18-CV-

5287, 2018 WL 4845737, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018);

Southerland, 2011 WL 73387, at *2.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s requests to

proceed in forma pauperis are granted. Her complaints are

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The

emergency requests for a preliminary injunction and temporary

restraining order are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is

directed to enter judgment, close these cases, and mail a copy

of this Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)

that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore

in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal.

Coppedge v. United States, 269 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee__________

ERIC KOMITEE

United States District Judge

Dated: June 22, 2023

Brooklyn, New York