MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 16, 2011, Eugene 1. Fisch, proceeding pro se, filed a 476 page Complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County,1 Plaintiffs Complaint asserts forty-two causes of action against twenty-five defendants and demands hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. On June 20, 2011, two separate defendant sub-groups, the "Polish Government Defendants"2 and the "Federal Defendants,"3 removed the case to this Court, resulting in two separate docket numbers: 11 Civ. 4182 and 11 Civ. 4183. I will now discuss the following actions to be taken by this Court, sua sponte, and pursuant to a motion filed by the plaintiff.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Consolidation

Plaintiff seeks to consolidate these actions pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 42").4 Rule 42 allows for the consolidation of cases involving "a common question of law or fact."5 District courts have "broad discretion" in determining whether to consolidate cases.6 The party moving for consolidation bears the burden of showing the commonality of factual and legal issues.7 "Differences in causes of action, defendants, or the class period do not render consolidation inappropriate if the cases present sufficiently common questions of fact and law, and the differences do not outweigh the interests of judicial economy served by consolidation."8 Although consolidation may enhance judicial economy, "[c]onsiderations of convenience and economy must yield to a paramount concern for a fair and impartial trial."9

Here, the federal cases are not identical because they were removed by different sub-groups of defendants. However, both federal cases are based on the same state-court Complaint. Thus, the allegations and causes of action underlying the federal cases are the same. Accordingly, case number 11 Civ. 1183 is hereby consolidated into case number 11 Civ. 1182, and all documents henceforth shall be filed in case number 11 Civ. 1182. The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to close case number 11 Civ. 1183, plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate, and any other outstanding motions in that case.10

B. Judicial Immunity

Case number 11 Civ. 1183 was removed by the Federal Defendants which consists of judges and court personnel. Judges, however, have enjoyed judicial immunity since the seventeenth century.11 In sum, judges are immune from suit when exercising their judicial authority.12 A judge is immune for acts performed in her judicial capacity13 and will be held liable only when she acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.14 Judicial immunity, like other forms of immunity, is immunity from suit, not just from damages.15 Finally, in cases of judicial immunity, a court may dismiss a defendant sua sponte, without affording a hearing or other notice of dismissal.16

Here, plaintiff has brought suit against Judges Preska, Wood, Livingston and Jacobs for acts taken pursuant to their judicial authority. Because these defendants are immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity, they are hereby dismissed from this lawsuit. The Clerk of the Court is thus ORDERED to remove Judges Preska, Wood, Livingston and Jacobs from the docket.

C. Prolixity of the Complaint

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires pleadings to present "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."17 "Accordingly, prolix, unintelligible, speculative complaints that are argumentative, disjointed and needlessly ramble have routinely been dismissed in this Circuit."18 As stated by the Second Circuit,

As stated earlier, here the Complaint is 476 pages long. As in a previous lawsuit brought by this plaintiff against some of the same defendants,20 the instant Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Poland authorized a government official to drug and rape plaintiff. Regardless of whether the Complaint has any merit, it is indisputably prolix and often unintelligible. Neither this Court, nor any party, should have to wade through endless pages of narrative to discern the causes of action asserted and the relief sought. To remedy this situation, the instant Complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to amend within the next thirty (30) days.21 If plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, which this Court views as being in substantial compliance with Rule 8, the action will be reinstated.22 Otherwise, the action will remain closed and the dismissal will then be with prejudice.23 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to close case number 11 Civ. 1182, without prejudice, plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate, and any outstanding motions in that case.24

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court is directed to consolidate case number 11 Civ. 4183 into case number 11 Civ. 4182, close case number 11 Civ. 4183, and close plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate and any other outstanding motions in case number 11 Civ. 4183. Defendants Judges Preska, Wood, Livingston, and Jacobs are dismissed from this lawsuit and the Clerk of the Court is directed to so indicate on the docket. Finally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close case number 11 Civ. 4182, without prejudice, as well as plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate and any other outstanding motions in that case.

SO ORDERED: