Schieferstein v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners PLLC

MEMORANDUM & ORDER On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff Carmine Schieferstein, appearing pro se, filed this action against Defendants invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 1 (Complaint) (citing 28 U.S.C. §1331).¹ Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. ECF No. 2 (IFP Motion). However, for the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. BACKGROUND This is Plaintiff’s second action involving the same claims. Last month, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the same attorneys and law firms and alleged that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. See Schieferstein v. Howland, No. 24-cv-07879 (filed Nov. 12, 2024). The first action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983″) and involved allegations about foreclosure proceedings that took place in 2016 in New York state court. Id. That action was dismissed, inter alia, because I found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Defendants under Section 1983. See Schieferstein v. Howland, No. 24-cv-07879, 2024 WL 4827735, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2024) (“Here, Plaintiff sues private attorneys and law firms. However, it is well-settled that private attorneys and law firms…do not act under color of state law and are not state actors for purposes of Section 1983 simply by virtue of their state-issued licenses to practice law.”).² Here, Plaintiff again alleges these same parties violated his constitutional rights in the same foreclosure proceedings when they failed to properly serve him and purportedly made “false statements and or misrepresentations to the [state] Court.” ECF No. 1