Cole v. Smrtic

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MATTHEW H. COLE,

Plaintiff,

V.

No. 1:24-CV-00847

5 HONORABLE MICHAEL W. SMRTIC, et al. (MAD/CFH)

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:

MATTHEW H. COLE

271 Market Street

Amsterdam, New York 12010

Plaintiff pro se

CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL

U.S. Magistrate Judge

REPORT-RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Il. In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff pro se Matthew H. Cole (“plaintiff’) commenced this action (No. 1:24-CV-

00623) on May 6, 2024, by filing a complaint. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). On

September 26, 2024, plaintiff submitted what the Court construes to be a supplement to

1

the complaint.' See Dkt. No. 7. In lieu of paying this Court’s filing fees, he submitted an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. No. 2. The

undersigned has reviewed plaintiff's IFP application and determines that he financially

1 The submission includes a letter addressed to District Judge D’Agostino, titled, “Requirements for

Cases Removed From State Court,” Dkt. No. 7; a receipt from Montgomery County Clerk dated

December 8, 2022; and a “Notice of Claim” with the caption of Cole v. County of Montgomery, dated

December 7, 2022. See Dkt. No. 7. The undersigned has reviewed this submission in connection with

the initial review of plaintiffs complaint. See Sira v. Morton, 380 F. 3d 57, 67 (2d Cir. 2004).

qualifies to proceed IFP.*. Thus, the Court proceeds to its review of the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has also submitted for the Court’s review a Pro

Se Application for Permission to File Electronically and a Motion to Appoint Counsel.

See Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.

ll. Initial Review

A. Legal Standards

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that, when a plaintiff

seeks to proceed IFP, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

determines that . . . the action or appeal (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). Thus, it is a court's

m| responsibility to determine that a plaintiff may properly maintain his complaint before

permitting him to proceed with his action.

Where, as here, the plaintiff proceeds pro se, “the court must construe his

submissions liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they

suggest.” Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam)

(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133, 136

m| (2d Cir. 1994). As the Second Circuit stated,

There are many cases in which we have said that a pro

se litigant is entitled to “special solicitude,” that a pro

se litigant’s submissions must be construed “liberally,” and

that such submissions must be read to raise the strongest

arguments that they “suggest[.]” At the same time, our cases

have also indicated that we cannot read intopro se

submissions claims that are not “consistent” with the pro

? Plaintiff is advised that, although he has been granted IFP status, he is still required to pay all fees and

costs he may incur in this action, including, but not limited to, copying fees, transcript fees, and witness

fees.

se litigant’s allegations, or arguments that the submissions

themselves do not “suggest,” that we should not “excuse

frivolous or vexatious filings by pro se litigants,” and that pro

se status “does not exempt a party from compliance with

relevant rules of procedural and substantive law[.]”

Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations and

footnote omitted); see also Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191-92

(2d Cir. 2008).

“The [Second Circuit]’s ‘special solicitude’ for pro se pleadings has its limits,

because pro se pleadings still must comply with . . . the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure [(‘Fed. R. Civ. P.’)].” Kastner v. Tri State Eye, No. 19-CV-10668 (CM), 2019

WL 6841952, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2019) (quoting Ruotolo v. IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d

Cir. 1994)). Pleading guidelines are provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Specifically, Rule 8 requires the pleading to include:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's

jurisdiction . . .;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought. . .

FeD. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although “[nJo technical form is required,” the Federal Rules make

clear that each allegation contained in the pleading “must be simple, concise, and

m| direct.” Id. at 8(d). “The purpose . . . is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so

as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an

adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable.”

Flores v. Graphtex, 189 F.R.D. 54, 54 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted). Allegations that “are so vague as to fail to give the defendants

adequate notice of the claims against them” are subject to dismissal. Sheehy v. Brown,

335 F. App'x 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order).

Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 provides:

[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set

of circumstances. A later pleading may refer by number to a

paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so would promote

° clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or

occurrence — and each defense other than a denial — must

be stated in a separate count or defense.

FED. R. Civ. P. 10(b). This serves the purpose of “provid[ing] an easy mode of

identification for referring to a particular paragraph in a prior pleading[.]” Flores, 189

F.R.D. at 54 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A complaint that fails to

comply with the pleading requirements “presents far too a heavy burden in terms of a

defendant’s duty to shape a comprehensive defense and provides no meaningful basis

for the Court to assess the sufficiency of their claims.” Gonzales v. Wing, 167 F.R.D.

352, 355 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). As the Second Circuit has held, “[w]hen a complaint does

not comply with the requirement that it be short and plain, the court has the power, on

its own initiative .. . to dismiss the complaint.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42

(2d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). However, “[d]ismissal . . . is usually reserved for

| those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise

unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Id. (citations omitted).

This Court also has an overarching obligation to determine that a claim is not

legally frivolous before permitting a pro se plaintiff's complaint to proceed. See, e.g.,

Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir. 2000).

“Legal frivolity . . . occurs where ‘the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal

theory [such as] when either the claim lacks an arguable basis in law, or a dispositive

defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint.” Aguilar v. United States, Nos. 99-

MC-0304, 99-MC-0408, 1999 WL 1067841, at *2 (D.Conn. Nov. 8, 1999)? (quoting

Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir.1998)); see also

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[D]ismissal is proper only if the legal

o theory ... or factual contentions lack an arguable basis.”).

B. Complaint

Plaintiff's civil cover sheet indicates that he seeks to bring this action pursuant to

“Title U.S.C. 18 Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights & Title U.S.C. 18 Section 242

Deprivation of rights Under Color of Law.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. The civil cover sheet

| further provides that his cause of action involves, “Violation of Due process, Speedy

Trial Rights, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. | feel | am being targeted for being

black and gay.” Id.

Plaintiff's form complaint checks the box indicating that he seeks to bring this

case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl. at 3. In response to the question in the

form complaint asking in “what federal constitutional or statutory right(s) do you claim

is/are being violated by state or local officials,” plaintiff responds, “Due Process, 30.30

Speedy Trial Violation, Ineffective Assistance of counsel.”* Id. In response to a

question asking him to explain “how each defendant acted under color of state or local

3 Any unpublished cases cited within this Report-Recommendation & Order have been provided to

PAlthough plaintiff generally references ineffective assistance of counsel, Compl. at 4, he does not name

any attorney who may have represented him. Any claims against the prosecutor would not be considered

ineffective assistance of counsel because Mr. Maxwell, as the prosecutor, was not plaintiffs attorney.

law,” plaintiff states “Each judge deliberately denied me due process, and refused to

look into the paperwork to see that i was improperly denied my speedy trial rights. It

was a tean [sic] effort. The ADA/Special Prosecutor withheld potential exculpatory

material which was usd [sic] against me. All mentioned actions were done and upheld

even after | showed federal law with supportive case law as a pro se litigant.” Id.

Plaintiff provides that his “case is still on appeakl [sic] in Appellate Court Third

Department. | feel they are guilty, or part of what | call a scandal. | went to them from

the very start with a complaint to the grievance committee, where they denied any

wrongdoing. It must be ok to violate Constitutional rights there. This is from March

2019 to present” Id.

In response to a question that asks plaintiff to state the facts underlying his

m| Claims, plaintiff states, “Please see attached Article 78 that is attached. It was

dismissed being in the wrong court, but is on point.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff did not provide

the Court with any such attachment and has not submitted any Article 78 materials.

See Compl., Dkt. No. 7.

In response to the form complaint’s question asking about any injuries suffered

as a result of the conduct he complains of, plaintiff states, “Sever [sic] depression over

| 20 years, irreperable [sic] harm, defamation of charcter [sic] by arguments not legally

allowed to give. Loss of income, inability to gain and keep employment, mental trauma,

instilled disbelief in justice in the legal system, familial traumam [sic] due to my legal

battles.” Id. Indicating the relief sought, plaintiff states

Petitioner seeks reinstatement of driving priveldges [sic], and 10 million

dollars for damages caused by conflict of interest, deliberate violation of

Due Process, Speedy Trial rights, Ineffective assistance of counsel,

malice, Brady Violation, Petitioner claims deliberate misconduct and

malice in Montgomery County Court, the Saratoga Disrict Attorney's

Office, and the Supreme Court Appellate Division Third department. **

This is subject to change if an attorney agrees to represent.

Compl. at 5. Although he typed his name, plaintiff does not sign the complaint where a

signature is indicated. See id. at 8.

Plaintiff provides in his supplement that he “removed this action to district court

° asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and § 1441.” Dkt. No. 7. at 1. Plaintiff

states that he removed this case from Montgomery County Supreme Court. See id. He

states that he seeks or sought the removal because he was told he was “not guarantee

counsel” at the state, but that “[iJn Federal Court, there is that option, pending

qualification, and | am told, if a lawyer agrees to take it, then | really have something. |

am in dire need of counsel.” Id.

Plaintiff states, “[t]he ineffective assistance of counsel and The County Court are

a matter already mentioned in the appeal.” Dkt. No. 7 at 2. Plaintiff states that “[t]o get

my conviction, | allege judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance

of counsel x 4. That is why | am pro se. | had to protect myself when appointed

counsel did not. It also went through a couple judges which is why they are mentioned

in the preliminary complaint/paperwork, and why | mention bias.” Id. Plaintiff states he

“prove each thing | saw not just with my words, but with transcripts® from the

County Court, and the Adult Drug Court.” Id. Plaintiff refers to being drug free for four

and a half years and having academic success in college. Id. at 3. He states that he

wishes this Court to hear his case because he believes he will not “see bias” in federal

court “like | saw in others.” Id. Plaintiff states that he “also put in a Notice of Removal

5 Plaintiff did not provide any transcripts.

in the Federal Court for those criminal charges that led to the Complaint. | do not trust

the assigned appellate attorney. That case too has Constitutional violations. That case

number is 1:24-CR-301 (AMN).” Id.

B. Discussion®

1. Rule 8

As a threshold issue, plaintiff's complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule

8. See FED. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). He does not provide a short and plain statement of the

claim demonstrating why he is entitled to relief. Although he makes general references

to both an Article 78 proceeding and a criminal proceeding and unexplained references

to “Due Process, 30.30 Speedy Trial Violation, Ineffective of Counsel,” he does not

provide factual support or context. Thus, his complaint does not provide “fair notice” to

m| defendants of the claims against them. See FED. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

2. Heck v. Humphrey

However, there are several substantive concerns that further lead the

undersigned to recommend dismissal. First, in referencing to “Due Process, 30.30

Speedy Trial Violation, Ineffective of Counsel” and explicitly referencing a criminal

conviction, it is clear that plaintiff is attempting to seek some kind of review of a criminal

| proceeding or conviction. See Compl. at 3. Plaintiff also accuses all named judges of

denying him due process and contends that an unnamed “ADA/Special Prosecutor

withheld potential exculpatory material which was usd [sic] against me.” Compl. at 4.

Plaintiff also references a conviction. See Dkt. No. 7 at 4. Such claims would be

barred by Heck v. Humphrey.

8 As a courtesy, the Court has provided plaintiff with copies of any unpublished cases cited within this

Report-Recommendation & Order.

As this Court, citing the District of Connecticut, has set forth:

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that in order for a plaintiff “to recover

damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for

other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make

such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of

a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 486-87. The court further held that “[a]

o claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence

that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at

487 (emphasis in original).

[

Thus, under Heck and its progeny, if a conviction has not been invalidated

previously, a Ҥ 1983 action is barred . . . no matter the target of the

prisoner's suit . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate

the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.

74, 81-82 (2005) (emphasis in original).

m| Ali v. Shattuck, No. 8:24-CV-0128 (DNH/CFH), 2024 WL 2747619, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. May

29, 2024), report-recommendation adopted sub nom. Ali v. Dow, No. 8:24-CV-128,

2024 WL 3460745 (N.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024) (quoting Zografidis v. Richards, No. 3:22-

CV-00631 (AVC), 2022 WL 21756775, at *7 (D. Conn. July 6, 2022), report and

recommendation adopted (Oct. 7, 2022), affid, No. 22-3197, 2023 WL 7538211 (2d Cir.

Nov. 14, 2023)).

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any criminal charge(s), conviction, or

sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question

by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Zografidis, 2022 WL

21756775, at *7. Although plaintiff's complaint wants for detail, the undersigned can

clearly determine that plaintiff seeks review of his criminal proceedings, conviction,

and/or sentence. The claims plaintiff seeks to pursue relate to allegations that he was

denied due process, denied speedy trial rights, and experienced ineffective assistance

of counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims are barred by Heck unless and until he can

demonstrate favorable termination of his criminal conviction.’

a tat

3. Immunities

Plaintiff names as defendants several defendants who are immune from suit.

Insofar as plaintiff names Hon. Michael W. Smrtic, Interim Montgomery County Judge

and Tatiana N. Coffinger, “County/Family/Surrogate’s Court Judge”® such claims would

be barred by judicial immunity.

“With minor exceptions, judges are entitled to absolute immunity for actions

relating to the exercise of their judicial functions.” Zavalidroga v. Girouard, No. 6:17-

CV-682 (BKS/ATB), 2017 WL 8777370, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. July 7, 2017) (citing Mireles v.

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991) (per curiam)). “Judicial immunity has been created for

the public interest in having judges who are ‘at liberty to exercise their functions with

? The undersigned recognizes that claims that are determined to be barred by Heck are dismissed

without prejudice. However, the undersigned has recommended dismissal with prejudice because

plaintiff has only named defendants who are immune from relief. Accordingly, the undersigned is

recommending dismissal of the claims based on these immunities, rather than a Heck dismissal. The

| undersigned has included the Heck review for sake of completeness.

8 Although plaintiff provides no facts regarding any family court proceedings, that he named a family court

judge and makes general reference to that he seeks review over actions taken by a family court judge.

Even if plaintiff were to amend his complaint to provide facts about any possible family court proceedings

and details about any alleged violations of his rights that he believes he faced in that Court, if plaintiff

seeks this Court’s review of an order of the family court, such review would be barred by Rooker-

Feldman, and if plaintiff seeks this Court’s review or intervention of a currently pending/ongoing Family

Court proceeding, such review would be barred by Younger. See Porter v. Nasci, No. 5:24-CV-0033

(GTS/TWD), 2024 WL 1142144, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2024) (citations omitted), report and

recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 3158645 (N.D.N.Y. June 25, 2024) (“Under the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, a federal district court lacks authority to review a final state court order or judgment where a

litigant seeks relief that invites the federal district court to reject or overturn such a final state court order

or judgment.”); see also Diamond “D” Constr. Corp. v. McGowan, 282 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2002)

(“[F]ederal courts [must] abstain from taking jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims that involve or

call into question ongoing state proceedings.”).

10

independence and without fear of consequences.” Id. (quoting Huminski v. Corsones,

396 F.3d 53, 74 (2d Cir. 2004)). “Judicial immunity applies even when the judge is

accused of acting maliciously or corruptly.” Id. (citation omitted); see Positano v. New

York, No. 12-CV-2288 (ADS/AKT), 2013 WL 880329, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013)

(explaining that the plaintiff may not bring action against a judge for actions taken in his

o judicial capacity, even when the actions violated the ADA).

“Judicial immunity is immunity from suit, not just immunity from the assessment

of damages.” Zavalidroga, 2017 WL 8777370, at *8 (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.

511, 526 (1985)). “The only two circumstances in which judicial immunity does not

apply is when he or she takes action ‘outside’ his or her judicial capacity and when the

judge takes action that, although judicial in nature, is taken ‘in absence of jurisdiction.”

m| ld. (quoting Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12). “In determining whether or not a judge acted in

the clear absence of all jurisdiction, the judge’s jurisdiction is ‘to be construed broadly,

and the asserted immunity will only be overcome when the judge clearly lacks

jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Pacherille v. Burns, 30 F. Supp. 3d 159, 163

(N.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Ceparano v. Southampton Just. Ct., 404 F. App’x 537, 539 (2d

Cir. 2011) (summary order)). “Whether a judge acted in a judicial capacity depends on

| the nature of the act [complained of] itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally

performed by a judge, and [on] the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt

with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Ceparano, 404 F. App’x at 539 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). “Further, if the judge is performing in his judicial

capacity,” he “will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error,

was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to

11

liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Ceparano, 404

F. App’x at 539 (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978)). “Judges are

not, however, absolutely ‘immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not

taken in the judge’s judicial capacity.” Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009)

(quoting Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11).

° Thus, as plaintiff names the judicial defendants in relation to actions or omissions

that they took in their roles as judges, their actions are protected by absolute judicial

immunity. To the extent plaintiff names Hon. Felix Catena, “Retired Administrative Law

Judge,” Judge Catena is also protected by absolute judicial immunity as a judge's

retirement, “does not impact [his or] her immunity for acts taken in [his or] her official

capacity before her retirement.” McCray v. Lewis, No. 16-CV-3855 (WFK/VMS), 2016

m| WL 4579081, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2016). To the extent plaintiff may seek to sue

the judges their official capacities, the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See

Pacherille v. Burns, 30 F. Supp. 3d 159, 163 n.5 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) (“The Eleventh

Amendment shields judges from suit to the extent that they are sued in their official

capacities.”).

In addition, plaintiff also references, exclusively in his “relief section of the form

complaint, “the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department” when stating that

he experienced “deliberate misconduct and malice.” Compl. at 7. He does not name

this Court as a defendant anywhere in the complaint. However, even if plaintiff were to

have named the Appellate Division, Third Department as a defendant, such defendant

would also need to be dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity as the

Appellate Division “is merely an agency or arm of New York State.” Benyi v. New York,

12

No. 3:20-CV-1463 (DNH/ML), 2021 WL 1406649, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2021), report

and recommendation adopted, No. 3:20-CV-1463, 2021 WL 1404555 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 13,

2021) (citation omitted). Accordingly, to the extent a liberal reading of the complaint

may suggest that plaintiff seeks to name the Appellate Division as a defendant, such

claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Compl.

° Finally, insofar as plaintiff seeks to sue Prosecutor Samuel V. Maxwell, Esq.,

Assistant District Attorney, in addition to the Heck issues noted above, he would be

protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. As this Court has recently reiterated,

Prosecutors enjoy “absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for those

prosecutorial activities ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the

criminal process.” Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 360-61 (2d Cir. 1987)

(citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). This immunity

encompasses “virtually all acts, regardless of motivation, associated with

[the prosecutor's] function as an advocate.” Hill v. City of New York, 45

F.3d 653, 661 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Absolute immunity applies when a prosecutor's conduct, acting as an

advocate during the judicial phase of the criminal process, “involves the

exercise of discretion.” Flagler v. Trainor, 663 F.3d 543, 547 (2d Cir. 2011)

(citing Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127 (1997)).

Accordingly, absolute immunity extends to functions such as “deciding

whether to bring charges and presenting a case to a grand jury or a court,

along with the tasks generally considered adjunct to those functions, such

as witness preparation, witness selection, and issuing subpoenas.” Simon

v. City of New York, 727 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Imbler, 424

U.S. at 431 n.33); see also Flagler, 663 F.3d at 547 (explaining, “the

Supreme Court has found prosecutors absolutely immune from suit for

alleged misconduct during a probable cause hearing, in initiating a

prosecution, and in presenting the State's case . . . [but] withheld absolute

immunity for conduct unrelated to advocacy, such as giving legal advice,

holding a press conference, or acting as a complaining witness.”). “[O]nce

a court determines that challenged conduct involves a function covered by

absolute immunity, the actor is shielded from liability for damages

regardless of the wrongfulness of his motive or the degree of injury

caused ....” Bernard v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 356 F.3d 495, 503 (2d Cir. 2004)

(citing Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985)).

13

Williams v. Atkins, No. 5:24-CV-0573 (DNH/TWD), 2024 WL 3649849, at *5 (N.D.N.Y.

June 11, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:24-CV-573, 2024 WL

3548760 (N.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024).

Plaintiff appears to suggest that Mr. Maxwell “withheld potentially exculpatory

material’ that was used against him. Compl. at 4. Beyond the Heck barriers already

° discussed, even if plaintiff could amend to provide greater detail, absolute immunity

would extent to even this alleged misconduct as such allegations clearly fall within the

scope of prosecutorial immunity. Accordingly, it is recommended that any claims

against ADA Samuel V. Maxwell be dismissed for absolute prosecutorial immunity.

“Furthermore, because the District Attorney's prosecutorial immunity is substantive and

not something that can be corrected by a better pleading, | recommend that the

m| dismissal be with prejudice.” Phillips v. New York, No. 5:13-CV-927, 2013 WL 5703629,

at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2013) (quoting Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 223 (2d Cir.

2000)).°

Ill. Conclusion

ORDERED, that plaintiff's in forma pauperis application (dkt. no. 2) be

| GRANTED; and it is

RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff's section 1983 claims against Honorable Michael

W. Smrtic; Tatiana N. Coffinger, County/Family/Surrogate’s Court Judge; and Felix

° Plaintiff appears to characterize his submissions as a purported removal to federal court or suggests

that he seeks to remove his case from Montgomery County Court to this Court. See Dkt. No. 7 (citing 28

U.S.C. § 1441). However, in addition to the infirmities mentioned above, plaintiff has not demonstrated

that any proceeding related to this complaint has been properly removed to, or is subject to removal to,

this Court. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Indeed, plaintiff's submissions appear to indicate that plaintiff is

the plaintiff in the County Court action. See id. § 1446(a).

14

Catena, Retired Administrative Law Judge (Dkt. Nos. 1, 7) be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE as follows: (1) claims brought against them in their personal/individual

capacities for judicial immunity, and (2) claims brought against them in their official

capacities for Eleventh Amendment immunity; and it is further

RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff's section 1983 claims against Assistant District

o Attorney Samuel V. Maxwell (Dkt. Nos. 1, 7) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE due to

absolute prosecutorial immunity; and it is further

RECOMMENDED, that, to the extent a liberal reading of the complaint may

suggest that plaintiff seeks to name the Appellate Division, Third Department, as a

defendant (Dkt. Nos. 1, 7), such claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred

by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and it is

RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff's pro se motion for permission to file

electronically (dkt. no. 4) and motion to appoint counsel” (dkt. no. 5) be DISMISSED

AS MOOT based on the above recommendations, and it is

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve this Report-Recommendation & Order on

plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties have

FOURTEEN (14) days 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 (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE

10 The undersigned also notes that plaintiff did not contend that he made any efforts to obtain counsel on

his own, show proof of any attorneys he contacted. See Terminate Control Corp v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d

1335 (2d Cir. 1994). See Dkt. No. 5.

15

REVIEW. Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec’y of

Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Feb. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 72.1

Dated: November 21, 2024 CUriolse— erm)

Albany, New York Christian F. Hummel

USS. Magistrate Judge

ry

11 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Report-Recommendation and Order by mail,

three (3) additional days will be added to the fourteen (14) day period, meaning that you have seventeen

(17) days from the date the Report-Recommendation and Order was mailed to you to serve and file

objections. FED. R. Civ. P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or

legal holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday,

or legal holiday. Id. § 6(a)(1)(c).

16