13-2133
Heath v. Justices of Supreme Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND
IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 16th day of January, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT:
RALPH K. WINTER,
CHESTER J. STRAUB,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
GEORGE HEATH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 13-2133-cv
JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK
COUNTY, JUSTICES OF APPELLATE DIVISION
(1 DEPT), JUSTICES OF N.Y. STATE COURT OF
APPEALS, JUSTICES OF UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT (E.D.N.Y.), JUSTICES OF
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS (2D CIR.),
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: George Heath, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Andrew W. Amend, Assistant Solicitor General
of Counsel, (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor
General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior
Counsel, on the brief), for Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of
New York, NY, representing the State
Defendants.
Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of New York (Varuni Nelson,
Margaret M. Kolbe and Matthew Silverman,
Assistant United States Attorneys of Counsel,
on the brief), Brooklyn, NY, representing the
Federal Defendants.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Amon, C.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant George Heath, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action against several state and federal judges, brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
A district court has the inherent authority to “dismiss a frivolous complaint sua
sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee.” Fitzgerald v. First E.
2
Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000). Although we have not
resolved whether such dismissals are reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion, we
need not reach that issue to affirm the district court’s decision “because [it] easily passes
muster under the more rigorous de novo review.” Id. at 364 n.2. The district court
properly dismissed Heath’s claims as barred by absolute judicial immunity. Judges when
“acting in a judicial capacity[,] are entitled to absolute immunity.” Montero v. Travis,
171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d Cir. 1999). Because all the actions taken by the judicial defendants
and complained of by Heath were actions taken in their judicial capacity and in
connection with Heath’s federal and state court proceedings, Heath’s claims are
foreclosed by absolute immunity.
We have considered Heath’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3