OPINION & ORDER

ALLYNE R. ROSS, District Judge.

Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed her initial complaint in this action on March 15, 2012. DE #1. Having amended her claim once in July 2012, DE #7, plaintiff again sought to amend her complaint in early 2013, and her deadline to file her second amended complaint was extended multiple times. Plaintiff finally filed her Second Amended Complaint on May 28, 2014, DE #83, but shortly thereafter informed Judge Chen and Magistrate Judge Scanlon, who were both then assigned to the case, that there were errors in the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff was given leave to file her corrections, and her (Corrected) Seconded Amended Complaint, which named a number of additional defendants was filed June 12, 2014. DE #91. Plaintiffs (Corrected) Second Amended Complaint asserts claims against a litany of defendants for violations of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.

Claims against Judge Chen and Magistrate Judge Scanlon

In particular, plaintiffs (Corrected) Second Amended Complaint asserts claims against Judge Pamela Chen and Magistrate Judge Vera Scanlon related to Judge Chen's April 29, 2014 denial of plaintiffs request for a protective order against an individual not named in the complaint. DE #91, ¶¶ 75-79. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Chen and Magistrate Judge Scanlon "refused to meaningfully respond." Id., ¶ 79.

Plaintiffs claims against Judge Chen and Magistrate Judge Scanlon must be dismissed because they are clearly barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. "[D]istrict courts may dismiss a frivolous case sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee." Hawkins-El v. AIG Fed. Sav. Bank, 334 F. App'x 394 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order) (quoting Fitzgerald v. First. E. 7th St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000)). In particular, claims may be dismissed sua sponte where the defendant is entitled to judicial immunity. See Miller v. Cnty. of Nassau, 467 F.Supp.2d 308, 312 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). It is well settled that judges have absolute immunity for all acts taken in their judicial capacity, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991), and their immunity is not overcome even by allegations of bad faith or malice, Pierson v. Ray, 286 U.S. 547, 554 (1967). Because the actions alleged in the complaint were taken within the scope of Judge Chen's and Magistrate Judge Scanlon's judicial responsibilities and plaintiff has not alleged that they were acting outside the scope of their jurisdiction, they are absolutely immune from plaintiffs claims.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs claims against Judge Pamela Chen and Magistrate Judge Vera Scanlon are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the dismissed defendants from the docket.

SO ORDERED.