MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Eliot Fred Bloom (“Plaintiff”), an attorney, commenced this action against the New York State Unified Court System (the “UCS”), the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department (the “Appellate Division”), the New York State Grievance Committees for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts (the “Grievance Committee”),1 Janet DiFiore, in her official capacity as Chief Judge of the State of New York and Chief Judicial Officer of the UCS (“Chief Judge DiFiore”), Catherine Sheridan, as Staff Counsel to the Grievance Committee (“Sheridan”), Michael Fuchs, individually and as Staff Counsel to the Grievance Committee (“Fuchs”); Aprilanne Agostino, as Chief Clerk of the Appellate Division (“Agostino”); Randall Eng, as the former Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division (“Justice Eng”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights under the federal and New York State constitutions and for tortious interference with his prospective economic relations. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF 19). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in its entirety. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the Complaint and other materials properly considered on a motion to dismiss.2 Plaintiff was admitted to the New York State bar on September 24, 1986. A myriad of disciplinary actions for professional misconduct checker his practice of law. (See, e.g., In re Bloom (Bloom III), 114 N.Y.S.3d 471, 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019) (cataloguing his “extensive disciplinary history”); In re Bloom (Bloom II), 37 N.Y.S.3d 343, 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) (same); In re Bloom (Bloom I), 949 N.Y.S.2d 136, 138-39 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (same)).3 The Court begins with the six-month suspension of Plaintiff’s law license. A former client’s complaint to the bar in 2014 led Defendant Grievance Committee to investigate and prosecute Plaintiff for engaging in an undisclosed conflicted representation. (Compl. 5.). Shortly before a hearing on the matter, Plaintiff learned that Defendant Fuchs, who led the prosecution, misstated the source of a certain document the prosecution sought to introduce into evidence. (Id.
29, 35.). In response, Plaintiff filed a separate grievance complaint against Fuchs, which allegedly planted the seed of retaliation in the minds of all Defendants. (See id.
