Ortiz v. Raimondi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
RAYMOND L. ORTIZ,
Plaintiff, 	MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-5956 (NRM) (ARL)
-against-
JOHN E. RAIMONDI, Support Magistrate,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Raymond L. Ortiz filed the instant Complaint on October 20,
2025. 	ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2;
ECF No. 3, are granted for the purpose of this Order. 	For the reasons that follow,
the Complaint is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff appeared in Suffolk County Family Court to determine his support
obligations to his child. 	ECF No. 1 at 5. 	Plaintiff claims that the Support
Magistrate, Defendant John E. Raimondi, required Plaintiff to produce medical
records, employment records, and tax documents, but did not require the other party
to produce records. 	Id. at 4–5. 	Plaintiff asserts that New York State law required
both parties to produce records. 	Id. 	Plaintiff also asserts that the magistrate judge
relied on outdated income information and ordered support payments greater than
the amount required by New York State law. 	Id. at 5–6. 	He seeks reimbursement
of funds that were deducted from his disability payments. 	Id. at 6.
Case 2:25-cv-05956-NRM-ARL Document 5 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted
by attorneys, and the Court is required to read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint liberally
and interpret it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests. 	Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); see Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 191–
93 (2d Cir. 2008). 	At the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume
the truth of “all 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)). 	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 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.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
DISCUSSION
It is well-settled that judges have absolute immunity from suits for damages
arising out of judicial acts performed in their judicial capacities. 	See Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988). 	The
absolute judicial immunity of the court and its members “is not overcome by
allegations of bad faith or malice,” nor can a judge “be deprived of immunity because
the action he took was in error . . . or was in excess of his authority.” 	Mireles, 502
U.S. at 11, 13 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 	Judicial immunity may be
Case 2:25-cv-05956-NRM-ARL Document 5 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
overcome only if the court is alleged to have taken nonjudicial actions or if the judicial
actions taken were “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” 	Mireles, 502 U.S. at
11–12.
All of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant involve the magistrate judge’s
official acts in judicial proceedings in Family Court, which are protected by judicial
immunity. 	Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s 	claim 	for 	monetary 	compensation 	against
Support 	Magistrate 	John 	E. 	Raimondi 	is 	dismissed 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. 	The action is dismissed because the only Defendant is immune from
suit. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). 	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).
The Clerk of Court shall close this case and enter judgment and mail a copy of
this Order to Plaintiff at the address provided and note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 13, 2026
Brooklyn, NY
Case 2:25-cv-05956-NRM-ARL Document 5 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>