Wilson v. Unique Logistics International, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
ROBERT WILSON,
Plaintiff,
-against-
UNIQUE LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-4895 (EK)(ST)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Wilson brought this claim against the
presiding judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York (Second Department) and a party against whom he was
litigating in state court. 	Proceeding pro se, he complains that
the Appellate Division failed to issue a timely decision of his
appeal. 	Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Wilson contends that the
delay has deprived him of due process rights protected by the
U.S. Constitution. 	He asked this Court to direct the Second
Department to decide his appeal within ten days. 	Compl. 2, ECF
No. 1.
After Wilson filed this action, the Second Department
rendered a decision. 	Order, Wilson v. Unique Logistics Int’l,
Inc., No. 2025-05384, Dkt. No. 20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t Sept.
17, 2025). 	This Court therefore denied the motion for
Case 2:25-cv-04895-EK-ST Document 8 Filed 12/21/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
preliminary relief as moot, Docket Order dated Oct. 8, 2025, and
ordered plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed as moot and invited him to address “whether the
doctrine of judicial immunity bars his claim for declaratory
relief.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff has not responded. 	Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a), ECF No. 2, is granted solely for the purpose of this
Order. 	For the reasons that follow, however, the complaint is
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, a
court will dismiss the complaint sua sponte if, among other
things, it “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), or the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 	See, e.g., United
States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (“[S]ubject-matter
jurisdiction, because it involves the court’s power to hear a
case, can never be forfeited or waived.”).1
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is now moot.
Requiring a decision was the only “form of meaningful injunctive
relief” the Court could have fashioned. 	Haczynska v. Mount
Sinai Health Sys., Inc., 738 F. Supp. 3d 300, 315 (E.D.N.Y.
2024). 	This request is thus dismissed for lack of subject
1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
Case 2:25-cv-04895-EK-ST Document 8 Filed 12/21/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
matter jurisdiction. 	See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey, 28 F.4th
383, 392 (2d Cir. 2022).
Judicial immunity bars Plaintiff’s claim for
declaratory relief against the presiding Justice (the Hon.
Hector D. LaSalle). 	In Rodriguez v. Weprin, the Second Circuit
afforded immunity to court employees who were alleged to have
failed to “properly manage the court calendar and more quickly
bring [plaintiff’s] appeal to fruition.” 	116 F.3d 62, 66 (2d
Cir. 1997). 	The panel explained that “[a] court’s inherent
power to control its docket is part of its function of resolving
disputes between parties.” 	Id. 	Judicial immunity therefore
applies.
The complaint must also be dismissed as to Unique
Logistics. 	Section 1983 applies to state action. 	It
establishes liability for persons acting “under color of any
statute, ordinance regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory or the District of Columbia.” 	42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	The
law thus “excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no
matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” 	American Mfrs. Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999). 	Wilson only
alleges that Unique Logistics is a “foreign corporation.”
Compl. 1.
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	See Butcher v. Wendt,
Case 2:25-cv-04895-EK-ST Document 8 Filed 12/21/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
975 F.3d 236, 241 (2d Cir. 2020) (holding that claims “barred by
absolute judicial immunity [are] correctly dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6)”). 	Dismissal is with prejudice.
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 denies in forma pauperis status for the
purpose of an appeal. 	Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
444-45 (1962). 	The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of
this order to plaintiff, note the mailing on the docket, enter
judgment, and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	December 21, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 2:25-cv-04895-EK-ST Document 8 Filed 12/21/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>