Case ID: f-appx_185/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daphne Marie RODENBAUGH, Appellant v. Joseph M. AUGELLO.
    No. 05-3778.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) May 25, 2006.
    Filed: June 21, 2006.
    Daphne Marie Rodenbaugh, Hazleton, PA, pro se.
    A. Taylor Williams, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Administrative Office of PA Courts, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.
    Before: BARRY, SMITH and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Daphne Marie Rodenbaugh appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing sua sponte her civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

On July 19, 2005, Rodenbaugh, a resident of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendant, a Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge presiding over a civil suit brought by Rodenbaugh, caused her emotional distress and depression by denying her “second amendment to proceed in forma pauperis.” She sought $500,000 in damages. The District Court dismissed the action under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), holding that her action was barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity because the defendant’s alleged actions were within his jurisdiction. Rodenbaugh timely appealed.

Rodenbaugh was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the appeal is now before the Court for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss an action or appeal if it (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary damages from a defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or factual reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

After reviewing Rodenbaugh’s District Court pleadings and notice of appeal, we conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed the Complaint for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s memorandum opinion. Having found no legal merit to this matter, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Appellant’s motion to expedite the appeal and judgment is denied.