Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KATHRYN M. SORRENTINO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK T. GOULD,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
JUDGMENT
This action came on for consideration on plaintiffs Complaint filed on March 14, 2013
before the Honorable Warren W. Eginton, Senior United States District Judge and the Honorable
Holly B. Fitzsimmons, United States Magistrate Judge. On March 28, 2013, a Recommended
Ruling entered dismissing the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(I). On April
16, 2013, an Order entered approving and adopting the Recommended Ruling.
It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the is dismissed in accordance with 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(i).
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 16th day of April, 2013.
ROBIN D. TABORA, CLERK
EOD:
4/16/2013
KATHRYN M. SORRENTINO
v.
MARK T. GOULD
RECOMMENDED RULING
Plaintiff Kathryn Sorrentino brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 1983, pro se and in forma pauperis, against
defendant Mark T. Gould, a Connecticut Superior Court judge.1
Plaintiff alleges that the judge violated her constitutional
right to due process when he issued adverse rulings in
plaintiffs state court actions. Plaintiff alleges the judge
issued his ruling without proper jurisdiction, violating her due
process rights.
may proceed with the action without prepaying the filing fee in
full. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a).
Plaintiff filed a complaint [doc. #1] and Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis [doc. #2] on March 14, 2013. Judge Eginton referred the
motion to the undersigned on March 18, 2013. [Doc. #4].
28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) -
(iii).
An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual
contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations
are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Nance v.
Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam)
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct.
1827, 1833, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989)). A claim is based on
an indisputably meritless legal theory when either the
claim lacks an arguable basis in law, Benitez v. Wolff, 907
F.2d 1293, 1295 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), or a
dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the
complaint. See Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.
1995).
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d
Cir. 1998)(internal quotation marks omitted).
construes pro se complaints liberally.
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The court
The court
See Neitzke v.
42 U.S.C. 1983.
The Supreme Court in Stump emphasized, the scope of the judges discretion
must be construed broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge. Id.
at 356.
3
The Supreme Court in Forrester noted, the decided cases . . . suggest an
intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative,
legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned
by law to perform. Id. at 227.
The
28 U.S.C. 1257.
CONCLUSION
The Complaint [Doc. #1] is DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(i).
Any objections to this recommended ruling must be filed
with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of the
receipt of this order.
Rules 72, 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate
Judges; Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F. 2d 15 (2d Cir.
1989)(per curiam); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc., 66 F. 3d 566,
569 (2d Cir. 1995).
ENTERED at Bridgeport, this 27th day of March 2013.
_____/s/______________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE