Gunn v. Stubbs et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER GUNN,
Plaintiff,
– against –
NEW YORK STATE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-cv-02296 (NCM) (PK)
NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:
By Memorandum and Order dated August 19, 2025, the Court granted pro se
plaintiff Christopher Gunn’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Gunn v. Stubbs,
No. 25-cv-02296, 2025 WL 2403395, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2025). Plaintiff was granted
leave to file an amended complaint explaining “how he was injured, who was responsible,
and why he thinks this Court has jurisdiction to remedy the injury.” Gunn, 2025 WL
2403395, at *4. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint alleging constitutional violations by
a new defendant: New York State. See generally Amended Compl. (“AC”), ECF No. 6. For
the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2025, plaintiff filed his complaint alleging that his constitutional
rights were violated by defendants, the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern
District of New York, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of
Justice, Federal Pretrial Services in New York and Chicago, the Bronx Police Department,
Case 1:25-cv-02296-NCM-PK Document 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
the Bolingbrook Police Department, and several individuals. See Compl. 2–5, ECF No. 1. 1
The Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim for relief and granted
plaintiff leave to amend. Gunn, 2025 WL 2403395, at *4
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendant,
New York State, engaged in a frivolous prosecution against him in violation of his
constitutional rights to free speech and liberty. AC 3. He asserts that in 2022, he “was
indicted by the New York State’s Attorney Office of the Eastern District” after he allegedly
threatened 	the 	Assistant 	United 	States 	Attorney 	who 	was 	handling 	the 	criminal
prosecution of the singer R. Kelly. 2 AC 5. Plaintiff, who states that he is a blogger, was
arrested in Illinois, and his electronic devices were seized. Id. A criminal case was filed
against plaintiff in this District for allegedly violating 18 U.S.C. § 875—transmission of
threats to injure. See United States v. Gunn, No. 22-cr-00314 (HG) (E.D.N.Y. 2022). On
November 9, 2023, the indictment was dismissed with prejudice. Id. at ECF No. 57.
Plaintiff’s cell phone and computer were returned to him with cracks on his computer
screen. AC 5. Plaintiff claims that the prosecution against him was frivolous, which caused
him to lose wages and seek therapy. He seeks punitive or compensatory monetary
damages for the frivolous prosecution against him. AC 3.
1 	Throughout this Order, page numbers for docket filings refer to the page numbers
assigned in ECF filing headers.
2 	Plaintiff filed a prior Section 1983 action against the United States Attorneys who
prosecuted his criminal action. That action was dismissed based on absolute immunity
and for failure to state a claim by Order dated July 29, 2024. See Gunn v. Olaniyan, No.
24-cv-04065, 2024 WL 3567015, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2024)
Case 1:25-cv-02296-NCM-PK Document 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). At the pleadings stage
of the proceeding, the court must assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory
factual allegations” in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111,
123 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). 3 It is axiomatic that
pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys,
and the court is required to read a pro se plaintiff’s complaint liberally and interpret it,
raising the strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007);
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d
185, 191–93 (2d Cir. 2008).
Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in
forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action “(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.”
DISCUSSION
Section 1983 provides, in relevant part, that: “[e]very person who, under color of
any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a
3 	Throughout this Order, the Court omits all internal quotation marks, footnotes,
and citations, and adopts all alterations, unless otherwise indicated.
Case 1:25-cv-02296-NCM-PK Document 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United
States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S.
137, 144 n.3 (1979); see Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010). To state a claim
under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: “(1) that the defendants
deprived him of a right ‘secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States’; and (2)
that they did so ‘under color of state law.’” Giordano v. City of New York, 274 F.3d 740,
750 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49–50
(1999)).
Plaintiff sues under Section 1983 and names New York State as the sole defendant.
“[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have
waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogate[d] the
states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir.
2009). Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity for claims under Section 1983.
See Dube v. State Univ. of N.Y., 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir. 1990). This is true regardless
of the relief sought. Casino v. StonyBrook Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 13-cv-6357, 2014 WL
317368, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2014) (“Although the Eleventh Amendment generally
does not bar suits against state officials acting in their official capacity seeking prospective
relief, i.e., to enjoin conduct that violates the federal Constitution . . . that exception to
Eleventh Amendment immunity is inapplicable to suits against the States and their
agencies, which are barred regardless of the relief sought.”). And the State of New York
has not waived its immunity to suit in federal court. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate
Park Comm'n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977); Obiagwu v. New York, No. 25-cv-8510,
Case 1:25-cv-02296-NCM-PK Document 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
2025 WL 3041952, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2025). Accordingly, the Court dismisses
plaintiff’s complaint against New York State pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted based on the defendant’s immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. 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 the
purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and
Order to the plaintiff, and note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Natasha C. Merle
NATASHA C. MERLE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 9, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-02296-NCM-PK Document 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>