OPINION & ORDERSYLLABUS The law affords judges absolute immunity unless the judge did not perform a judicial act or clearly acted without jurisdiction. Similarly, absent extraordinary circumstances such as bad faith, the Younger doctrine prevents a party from challenging the constitutionality of state court proceedings in federal court. Federal courts must abstain where a party seeks to enjoin an ongoing, parallel state court proceeding that implicates a state’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.Defendant Justice Laura Drager presided over pro se Plaintiff E. Oxman’s post-divorce proceedings in the New York Supreme Court. Oxman insists that three of Justice Drager’s rulings violated federal and state law and seeks injunctive relief and damages against her. However, Justice Drager’s absolute immunity bars all of Plaintiff’s claims and the Younger abstention doctrine precludes the Court from exercising jurisdiction over these claims.PROCEDURAL HISTORYPlaintiff brought this action against Defendant Justice Drager seeking injunctive relief and damages for violating her Constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and parallel state law. ECF No.1. On February 22, 2018, this Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds of absolute judicial immunity and Younger abstention. ECF No. 10 (“Dismissal Order”). On February 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to amend her Complaint. ECF No. 11. On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a subsequent motion of reconsideration and requested the Court to recuse itself. ECF Nos. 12-13 (“P1 Mem”). On August 13, 2018, the Court denied all of Plaintiff’s requests. ECF No. 21.Plaintiff now moves for relief from this judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 22 (“Pl.’s Mot.”). On September 6, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a subsequent letter requesting the Court to hold its decision on the Relief from Judgment Motion in abeyance. ECF No. 23. On September 19, 2018, Defendant filed its Opposition Memorandum. ECF No. 24.1 For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.DISCUSSIONI. Motion for Relief from JudgmentA. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party may seek relief from a district court’s order of judgment for the following reasons:(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason justifying relief.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In her motion, Plaintiff argues, for example:“Defendant [Judge] Drager’s conduct is beyond the pale, beyond extreme-a court in a third world country, where the laws are ignored, and her whims and tricks are a matter of course for those whom she favors, as is known…Plaintiff E. Oxman was the aggrieved party, the court knew it, Plaintiff knows Defendant [Judge] Drager, and filed to get away as quickly as possible, but [Judge] Drager just kept on going, making decision after decision and Orders etc. all to favor John Craig Oxman, the Defendant in the underlying case…”Pl’s. Mot. at 76. The Court has considered all of Plaintiff’s arguments. Even after liberally interpreting her motion, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that any of the grounds listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) apply. Plaintiff cites to the entire rule, but the Court will address the provisions Plaintiff’s moving papers appear to emphasize.B. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(2)Plaintiff asserts there is newly discovered evidence in the matrimonial case file, i.e., “forged documents, illegal Quitclaim…Deeds,” and a letter from an attorney, all apparently filed by parties or attorneys appearing in the matrimonial case and contained in the matrimonial case file. Pl.’s Mot.
