Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-23-02072/USCOURTS-ca3-23-02072-0/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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 23-2072

______________

JEFFREY J. PROSSER; JOHN P. RAYNOR,

 Appellants

v.

GRETCHEN C.F. SHAPPERT, Virgin Islands USA, in her Official Capacity;

MERRICK B. GARLAND, the U.S. Attorney General in his Official Capacity

______________

On Appeal from the District Court

for the Virgin Islands

(D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00026)

District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

December 10, 2024

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge; MONTGOMERY-REEVES and FISHER, Circuit 

Judges.

(Opinion filed: January 16, 2025)

______________

OPINION

______________

MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judge.

Jeffrey J. Prosser and John P. Raynor (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the District Court’s 

orders dismissing their claims and denying their motion for reconsideration. Because the 

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

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 23-2072 Document: 81 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025
2

District Court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for which 

relief can be granted, we will affirm the District Court’s orders. 

I. BACKGROUND

In March 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of the Virgin 

Islands seeking declaratory judgments that they are entitled to certain documents (the 

“Complaint”). District Court Docket No. 3:21-cv-00026, ECF No. 1 (hereinafter 

“Compl.”). The Complaint stated that “[j]urisdiction exists under the Declaratory 

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (depravation of rights) which 

presents a Federal Question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (Judicial 

Review under the Administrative Procedure Act).” Compl. 4. The Complaint listed the 

defendants as Gretchen Shappert, the Virgin Islands United States Attorney, and Merrick 

Garland, the United States Attorney General, both named solely in their official 

capacities (“Defendants”). The Complaint also stated that “[t]his action seeks only to 

obtain documents, EVIDENCE, necessary to end the Deprivation and to redress: the 

Enterprise Retaliatory Acts and the Enterprise’s Financial Racketeering Activities.” 

Compl. 9. The only relief sought by the Complaint are two declaratory judgments: one 

declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to sealed documents in a criminal proceeding to 

which they are not parties and another declaring that they are entitled to documents that 

they allege are in the possession of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). 

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

and for failure to state a claim. The District Court granted their motion and dismissed the 

Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration that did not address the District 

Case: 23-2072 Document: 81 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2025
3

Court’s basis for dismissing the Complaint, but instead argued exclusively that the Virgin 

Islands Bankruptcy Court is unlawfully constituted and requested that the District Court 

stay all proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court and adjudicate whether the Bankruptcy 

Court is lawfully constituted. The District Court denied the motion for reconsideration. 

Plaintiffs appealed. 

II. DISCUSSION1

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their claims and the denial of their motion 

for reconsideration of that dismissal. We address each decision in turn below. 

A. Motion to Dismiss

We review de novo the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6),

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. GBForefront, L.P. v. 

Forefront Mgmt. Grp., 888 F.3d 29, 34 n.5 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Horizon 

Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 632 (3d Cir. 2017)); Simon v. 

FIA Card Servs., N.A., 732 F.3d 259, 264 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Mariotti v. Mariotti Bldg. 

Prods., Inc., 714 F.3d 761, 765 (3d Cir. 2013)).

As to subject matter jurisdiction, the District Court correctly held that neither the 

Declaratory Judgment Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act provide an independent 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, see United States 

v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (citing United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 

291 (1947)), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291.

Case: 23-2072 Document: 81 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2025
4

basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Allen v. DeBello, 861 F.3d 433, 444 (3d 

Cir. 2017); Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). But Plaintiffs attempt to plead

a § 1983 claim, which does give rise to federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. Kulick 

v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass’n, Inc., 816 F.2d 895, 897 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus, the 

District Court erred in holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Regardless, the District Court correctly dismissed the Complaint for failure to state 

a claim for three reasons. First, “federal agencies and officers are facially exempt from 

section 1983 liability inasmuch as in the normal course of events they act pursuant to 

federal law.” Hindes v. F.D.I.C., 137 F.3d 148, 158 (3d Cir. 1998) (collecting cases). 

There are no allegations in the Complaint that either Shappert or Garland ever acted 

under color of state law. Therefore, both Defendants are facially exempt from liability 

under § 1983. 

Second, Plaintiffs cannot use one district court judge to overrule an order of a 

different district court judge. Here, Plaintiffs seek sealed records in a criminal 

proceeding before the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the “Williams Court”). 

Plaintiffs correctly filed a motion to unseal the records in front of the Williams Court. 

But Plaintiffs must wait for the Williams Court to rule on their motion. If Plaintiffs do 

not like the ruling, they may appeal the decision. Alternatively, if there is a legal basis to 

do so, Plaintiffs may file a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Williams Court to 

rule on the pending motion. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[A]n 

appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is 

Case: 23-2072 Document: 81 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/16/2025
5

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction[.]”). But there is no basis for the District 

Court here to review the decision of the Williams Court to seal the documents at issue. 

Third, Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the process outlined in the Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”) to obtain the documents they seek from the DOJ here. Until 

Plaintiffs have filed a FOIA request, and the DOJ has denied that request, they cannot 

seek the documents from the DOJ through the District Court. See McDonnell v. United 

States, 4 F.3d 1227, 1236–41 (3d Cir. 1993). We will therefore affirm the District 

Court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

B. Motion for Reconsideration

“[This] Court reviews a denial of a motion for reconsideration under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” United States ex rel. Ascolese v. Shoemaker Constr. Co., 55 F.4th 

188, 193 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing B.C. v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 12 F.4th 306, 313 (3d Cir. 2021)). 

“The purpose of such a motion is to correct a clear error of law or to prevent a manifest 

injustice in the District Court’s original ruling.” United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724, 

732 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 

F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999)). These “motions ‘are granted for “compelling reasons,”

such as a change in the law which reveals that an earlier ruling was erroneous, not for 

addressing arguments that a party should have raised earlier.’” Id. (quoting Solis v. 

Current Dev. Corp., 557 F.3d 772, 780 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted)). 

While “[m]otions to reconsider empower the court to change course when a mistake has 

Case: 23-2072 Document: 81 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/16/2025
6

been made, they do not empower litigants . . . to raise their arguments, piece by piece.” 

Id. at 732–33 (alterations in original) (quoting Solis, 557 F.3d at 780).

Here, the District Court dismissed the Complaint, which sought declaratory 

judgments that Plaintiffs were entitled to certain documents, for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. In response, Plaintiffs filed a motion for 

reconsideration that did not address any of the grounds for dismissal but instead solely 

attacked the legality of the Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court and requested that the 

District Court stay all bankruptcy proceedings in the Virgin Islands and adjudicate 

whether the Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court was lawfully constituted. This request for 

relief is not included in the Complaint; Plaintiffs did not raise the argument that the 

Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court is unlawfully constituted in their opposition to the 

motion for dismiss; and both the requests and argument are irrelevant to the District 

Court’s bases for dismissing the Complaint. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse 

its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, we will affirm the District Court’s orders 

dismissing the claims and denying the motion for reconsideration. 

Case: 23-2072 Document: 81 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/16/2025