Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04138/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04138-0/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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 09-3412, 09-4138 & 09-4324 (cons.)

___________

KARL E. WHITE,

Appellant

v.

G. MICHAEL GREEN; CHRIS D. ROSATO; IAN MCCURDY; LORI ANDERSON;

MARY MANN; JOSEPH CRONIN; WILLIAM R. TOAL, JR.; PHIL PISANI; MS.

LOPRESTI; BARRY C. DOZER; SUE WILLIAMS; MICHAEL F.X. COLL; MIMI

BRADLEY WALKER; DEBRA S. SCHILLING; KATHLEEN CONNOR; GEORGE

HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, individually

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil No. 2:09-cv-01219)

District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill Jr.

____________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 26, 2010

Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed June 2, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of Karl E. White’s pro se civil

Case: 09-4138 Document: 003110166807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2010
2

rights complaint. We will affirm.

White initiated his lawsuit in March 2009 by filing an application to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP). The District Court denied the application citing White’s ability to

pay the $350 filing fee. White then paid the fee and filed a complaint alleging false

imprisonment against state prosecutors, judges, and pre-trial bail officers who denied him

bail in a 2007 criminal case. According to White, he was arrested in April 2007 and held

for 10 months in the George W. Hill Correctional Facility. White also named the

Correctional Facility as a defendant, claiming that it falsely imprisoned him and that

guards there performed unnecessary strip searches. Finally, White claimed that two

judges and three agents from the Delaware County Domestic Relations Department seized

his federal stimulus payment.

All of the defendants, except for the Correctional Facility, filed motions to dismiss. 

The District Court granted the motions and allowed White twenty days to file an amended

complaint against the Correctional Facility. White failed to file an amended complaint. 

The Correctional Facility then moved to dismiss, citing White’s failure to serve his

complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. The District Court granted the motion,

dismissed the complaint, and provided White twenty days to amend and to effectuate

proper service. Instead of amending, White filed a notice of appeal from the District

Court’s order. White filed two other notices of appeal and he challenges ten of the

District Court’s orders on appeal. The Clerk consolidated the appeals. 

Case: 09-4138 Document: 003110166807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2010
 White’s first notice of appeal, docketed as C.A. No. 09-3412, was from the District 1

Court’s August 4 order granting the first motion to dismiss. At that time, the order was

not appealable inasmuch as White had outstanding claims pending against the

Correctional Facility. The District Court has since dismissed White’s claims against all

parties. The August 4 order is therefore now final and appealable. See Cape May

Greene, Inc. v. Warren, 698 F.2d 179, 185 (3d Cir. 1983) (considering a premature appeal

that is followed by a final order to be an appeal from the final order). Further, White filed

a notice of appeal after the District Court’s final order, triggering the review of all

previous orders. 

3

We have jurisdiction over the final orders of District Courts under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s decision to grant 1

defendants’ motions to dismiss. Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Pharmacia Corp., 554 F.3d

342, 346 (3d Cir. 2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially

plausible when its factual content allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that a

defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

1949 (2009). We review the District Court’s order dismissing a complaint for improper

service for abuse of discretion. See Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298,

1308 (3d Cir. 1995). We review the denial of leave to proceed IFP for abuse of

discretion. See Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1985).

First, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in requiring White

to pay the $350 filing fee. In his declaration in support of his IFP application, White

stated that he earned $1,144 per month from his job. He also stated that he did not pay

Case: 09-4138 Document: 003110166807 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2010
 White also filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s decision to grant him IFP 2

on appeal. Inasmuch as he was not aggrieved by the District Court’s order, he lacks

standing to appeal it. See Watson v. City of Newark, 746 F.2d 1008, 1010 (3d Cir. 1984).

4

rent, that he paid $30 a week in child support payments, and that he received food stamps. 

Given White’s financial resources, the filing fee did not impermissibly “‘force [him] to

abandon what may be a meritorious claim in order to spare himself complete

destitution.’” Id. at 79 (quoting Adkins v. Dupont Co., 335 U.S. 331, 340 (1949)).2

Second, we agree with the District Court that White’s complaint failed to state a

plausible claim for relief. White’s claims against judicial defendants for presiding over

his civil and criminal cases are barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Stump v.

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978) (listing requirements for application of judicial

immunity). Moreover, the prosecutorial defendants are also immune from civil suits for

initiating and presenting a criminal case against White. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509

U.S. 259, 273 (1993); see also Ernst v. Child and Youth Servs. of Chester County, 108

F.3d 486, 502 (3d Cir. 1997) (noting that immunity applies even if the prosecutor acted in

bad faith). 

We also agree that the District Court properly dismissed White’s claims against the

bail agency defendants. White’s only allegation against the bail agency defendants was

that they denied him bail. In Pennsylvania, however, only a court may deny a defendant

bail. See Commonwealth v. Dixon, 907 A.2d 468, 477 n.12 (Pa. 2006) (“Article I,

Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution permits courts to deny bail when ‘no

Case: 09-4138 Document: 003110166807 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/02/2010
5

condition or combination other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of

any person in the community.’”) White has not alleged a plausible claim that non-judicial

actors somehow denied him bail. Therefore, White did not state a claim on which relief

could be granted. 

Similarly, White did not state a viable claim against the defendants who work for

the Delaware County Domestic Relations Department. White alleges that these

defendants were “the motivating force” behind two judges who seized White’s federal

stimulus payment. The stimulus payment, however, was seized pursuant to a state court

child support order. The individual defendants who were carrying out the court’s order

are immune from civil suit. See Gallas v. Sup. Ct. of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 772-73 (3d Cir.

2000). Given the futility of attempting to sue defendants who are immune from suit, we

also hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying White’s attempts

to amend his complaint against the non-Correctional Facility defendants. See Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 192 (1962) (District Court may, at its discretion, refuse to grant

leave to amend where amendment would be futile). 

The District Court also did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims against

the Correctional Facility, owned by local government, for improper service. Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2) requires that a local government be served “by delivering a

copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer” or by a process

permitted under Pennsylvania law. Under Pennsylvania law, service could be effectuated

Case: 09-4138 Document: 003110166807 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/02/2010
 We also agree with the District Court’s denial of White’s motion to disqualify. The 3

record does not support the appearance of bias or prejudice on the part of the District

Court Judge. Nor did White demonstrate that he met the requirements for a temporary

injunction.

6

by handing a copy to (1) an agent duly authorized, or 2) the person in charge at the office

of the defendant, or 3) the mayor, or the president, chairman, secretary or clerk of the tax

levying body thereof, or in some cases, the chairman or clerk of the board of county

commissioners. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 422(b). White sent a copy of the complaint to the

Correctional Facility via certified mail. This method does not comply with either

provisions of Rule 4. Further, White has not shown good cause for his failure to serve the

Correctional Facility. See Petrucelli, 46 F.3d at 1305. The District Court, therefore, did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for improper service. Inasmuch as

White did not properly serve the Correctional Facility, the District Court also properly

denied White’s motion for default judgment. See Gold Kist Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co.,

756 F.2d 14, 19 (3d Cir. 1985) (“A default judgment entered when there has been no

proper service of complaint is, a fortiori, void, and should be set aside.”) 

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing

White’s civil suit.3

Case: 09-4138 Document: 003110166807 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/02/2010