Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03807/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03807-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3807

___________

YURIY S. EPSHTEYN,

 Appellant

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DELAWARE COUNTY PA;

PHILIP IANNUCCI; DENISE GREEN, H/W

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-01046)

District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 19, 2015

Before: RENDELL, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 25, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3807 Document: 003112000842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
2

Yuriy Epshteyn appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint. For 

the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

The procedural history of this case and the details of Epshteyn’s claims are well 

known to the parties and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Epshteyn had a dispute 

over a property line with his neighbor, Philip Iannucci. Epshteyn filed a civil action in 

The Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County alleging over 1100 instances of 

trespass and nuisance by Iannucci. After Epshteyn placed a lis pendens on Iannucci’s 

property, Iannucci brought a counterclaim against Epshteyn. A jury found in favor of 

Iannucci on both Epshteyn’s claims of trespass and nuisance and Iannucci’s 

counterclaims of abuse of process, trespass, and intentional interference with contracts. 

The jury awarded Iannucci $40,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. 

In his amended federal complaint, Epshteyn contended that the Court of Common 

Pleas conspired with Iannucci and his wife, Denise Green, to deprive him of due process 

in state court which resulted in an unjust jury verdict against him. The District Court 

dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), concluding that the claims 

against the Court of Common Pleas were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and 

the claims against Iannucci and Green failed because they were not state actors. 

Epshteyn filed a notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise de novo review over the 

District Court’s order. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). The 

District Court was correct that Appellant’s claims against the Court of Common Pleas for 

Case: 14-3807 Document: 003112000842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
3

Delaware County are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Benn v. First Judicial 

Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 240 (3d Cir. 2005).

Epshteyn asserts that his injuries include the state court judgment against him. He 

requests that the judgment be voided. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives a District 

Court of jurisdiction to review, directly or indirectly, a state court adjudication. See D.C. 

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 

U.S. 413 (1923). The Supreme Court has explained that this doctrine is narrow and 

confined to cases, such as this one, “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries 

caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings 

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon 

Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The District Court 

was correct that it lacked jurisdiction over Epshteyn’s challenges to the judgment or 

decisions of the Court of Common Pleas. 

To the extent that Epshteyn is complaining that Appellees conspired to violate his 

right to due process and a fair result in the state court, the District Court had jurisdiction 

over his claim. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 

159, 167, 171-73 (3d Cir. 2010). However, Epshteyn’s conclusory allegations of a 

conspiracy by Appellees fail to state a claim. He has not pleaded any facts that suggest a 

meeting of the minds between Iannucci, Green, and any employees of the Court of 

Common Pleas. Id. at 179 (citing Bell Atl. Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 

(2007)). His failure to adequately plead a conspiracy also precludes his claims under 42 

Case: 14-3807 Document: 003112000842 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
4

U.S.C. § 1983 that Iannucci and Green conspired with state actors to deprive him of his 

constitutional rights. This is because he has not sufficiently alleged that Appellees 

Iannucci and Green, as private actors, acted jointly with the Court of Common Pleas. See

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970). And Epshteyn has not set forth 

any facts supporting his claims that Appellees’ actions were motivated by racial or classbased animus. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985.

For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Epshteyn’s 

motions to ban judicial reprisal and to expand the record are denied. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2283.

Case: 14-3807 Document: 003112000842 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/25/2015