# Gu v. Zeng

> District Court, E.D. New York · June 22, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309902

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** June 22, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309902

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309902. Public record. Not legal advice.