The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
THURMAN JEROME BROWN,
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
23-CV-6453 (EK)(ST)
-against-
NASSAU COUNTY FIRST DISTRICT COURT
CLERK’S OFFICE; VICTOR M. ORT; DONALD
P. DERIGGI; JACOB MISHLER, U.S
District Judge; ALLYNE ROSS, U.S.
District Judge; and GARY BROWN, U.S.
District Judge,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Thurman Jerome Brown brings this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He alleges violations of his
constitutional rights related to past criminal proceedings in
Nassau County, as well as past civil proceedings in this court.
He names as defendants various Nassau County and federal judges,
as well as the Nassau County First District Court Clerk’s
Office. For the reasons outlined below, the Court dismisses
Brown’s complaint sua sponte on timeliness and immunity grounds.
1 On February 27, 2024, the Court denied Brown’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis and granted him fourteen days to either file a long form in
forma pauperis application or pay the court’s filing fee. See Mem. & Order 2,
ECF No. 7. Brown failed to do either, so the Court dismissed the case
without prejudice. On May 24, 2024, Brown paid the filing fee, and on June
4, 2024, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to re-open the case.
Background
The following allegations are drawn from Brown’s
complaint and its associated exhibits, and they are assumed to
be true for purposes of this order. Chambers v. Time Warner,
Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).2
Brown was arrested on robbery and burglary charges on
September 19, 1996. See Compl. Ex. A at 6, ECF No. 1-1. He
claims that the Nassau County First District Court Clerk’s
Office (“Clerk’s Office”) withheld, altered, and improperly
sealed documents during the subsequent criminal prosecution.
See Compl. 4, ECF No. 1. He also alleges that two state judges
involved in that case — Justices Victor M. Ort and Donald P.
DiRiggi — altered court transcripts, permitted multiple
prosecutions in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and
meddled in subsequent appeals. Id. at 5-7.
Brown also alleges misconduct by federal judges
involved in later civil proceedings related to his state
prosecution. He claims that District Judges Jacob Mishler and
Allyne Ross improperly dismissed motions for reconsideration
filed (respectively) in 2002 and 2006. Id. at 9. And he claims
that in a 2021 civil lawsuit, District Judge Gary Brown issued
conflicting orders on the service of his complaint, deliberately
2 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
withheld a report and recommendation from a magistrate judge,
and improperly dismissed the case. Id. at 10-11; see Brown v.
The People of the State of N.Y., No. 20-CV-00020 (E.D.N.Y. May
24, 2021). It is unclear what remedies the plaintiff seeks,
aside from the request that Judge Brown not preside over his
case. See Compl. 11.
Legal Standard
A complaint must plead sufficient facts to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A court must 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) (per curiam). Nevertheless, an unrepresented 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). And “district courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint
sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing
fee.” See Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Street Tenants Corp.,
221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Discussion
A. Timeliness
Most of Brown’s claims are time-barred. “Section 1983
actions filed in New York are . . . subject to a three-year
statute of limitations.” Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 517
(2d Cir. 2013). Brown’s claims, other than those related to
Judge Brown’s May 24, 2021 dismissal order, all pertain to
events that allegedly occurred more than three years before he
filed the instant action on August 23, 2023. So, those claims
are facially untimely and must be dismissed.3 See Smith v. N.Y.
City Transit Auth., 201 F.3d 432, 432 (2d Cir. 1999) (table
decision) (“[A] complaint may be dismissed as frivolous prior to
service where it is clear from the face of the complaint that
the claim is time-barred under the applicable statute of
limitations”).
B. Sovereign Immunity
Brown’s claim against the Clerk’s Office also cannot
survive under basic Eleventh Amendment principles. “As a
general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court
unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or
3 New York law permits equitable tolling of a statute of limitations,
but this only applies in “rare and exceptional circumstances, where a party
was prevented from timely performing a required act and where that party
acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period he sought to toll.”
Jones v. City of New York, 846 Fed. App’x. 22, 24 (2d Cir. 2021). Brown has
not alleged “rare and exceptional circumstances” (or, indeed, any
circumstances) justifying equitable tolling here.
unless Congress has abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment
immunity when acting pursuant to its authority under Section 5
of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355,
366 (2d Cir. 2009). This immunity extends to “state agents and
state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.”
Id.
New York has not waived its sovereign immunity to suit
in federal court. Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n,
557 F.2d 35, 39-40 (2d Cir. 1977). Congress did not abrogate
this immunity when it enacted Section 1983. Quern v. Jordan,
440 U.S. 332, 342-45 (1979). And there is no dispute that the
“Clerk’s Office” is an instrumentality of New York State. Thus,
the Eleventh Amendment clearly applies, meaning Brown’s claims
against the Clerk’s Office must be dismissed. See Rubin v. N.Y.
State Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, No. 10-CV-4119, 2010 WL 3842011,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2010).
C. Judicial Immunity
Finally, Brown’s claims against the state and federal
judges fail under the doctrine of judicial immunity. “Judges
acting in their judicial capacity are absolutely immune from
suit, even where the plaintiff asserts constitutional violations
under [Section] 1983.” Burdick v. Town of Schroeppel, 717 F.
App'x 92, 93 (2d Cir. 2018). This immunity may only be overcome
if (1) the challenged acts were not taken in a judicial
capacity, or (2) the acts, “though judicial in nature, [were]
taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam).
Here, Brown’s claims against the state and federal
judges all stem from decisions made in prior state and federal
court proceedings. Brown alleges no facts suggesting that these
actions were non-judicial in nature, or that they were taken in
the absence of all jurisdiction. Thus, judicial immunity
clearly bars these claims. See Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757,
760 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (“A complaint will be dismissed
as frivolous when it is clear that the defendants are immune
from suit.”); Reiss v. Baron, No. 22-CV-908, 2022 WL 624420, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2022) (dismissing Section 1983 claims
against judges as frivolous given the application of judicial
immunity).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Brown’s complaint is
dismissed with prejudice. See Kling v. World Health Org., 532
F. Supp. 3d 141, 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (“Courts regularly dismiss
complaints with prejudice where the defendant is immune from
suit.”). The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order to
Brown, noting the mailing on the docket. Although Brown paid
the filing fee to bring this action, the Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma
pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge
v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United State
s District Judge
D ated: July 29, 2025
Brooklyn, New York