2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-18-2010 

# J o seph M a ye rcheck v . Judges P A S upre me C t P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3575

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J os ep h M a

ye r che ck v . Jud g e s P A S upr e me C t " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 743. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/743NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 3575 DR. J OSEPH A. MAYERCHECK, Appellant

v. JUDGES O F TH E PENN SYLVA NIA SUPRE MECO URT; JUDGES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERI OR COURT; JUDGE CHRI STOPHER FELI CIANI ; JUDGE RI TA HATHAWAY; MASTER H. GERVASE FAJT;

WILLIAMWIKE R; B ARB AR A J. IRWI

N MAYERC HE CK ; D IS C IP LINARYB O ARD O F T H ES UP RE M EC O URTO F P ENN S Y LVA N IA O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 01112) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL . L anca s t er Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t11, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t18, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM D r . J os eph A . M ay er chec k, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the or derof the2

Di s t r i c tCo u r tg r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n s t o d i s mi s s . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. I n A ugus t2008, M ay er chec k fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai nti n t he D i s t r i ctC our tal l egi ng t hatt he def

endant s cons pi r ed t o depr i ve hi m of hi s fede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s dur i ng di vor ce pr ocee di ngs fr om hi s w i fe, defe ndantB arbar a M ay er chec k. M ay er chec k al l eged t hati n M ay1999, he and Barbar a s i gned a di vor ce c ontr act . I n M ay2000, B arbar a had a n at t or neydr aftan i dent i cal contr act , w hi ch the part i es eac h s i gned. M ay er chec k al l eged th a t th e c o n tra c t w a s f

iled w ith th e p ro th o n o tar yin th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s in W es t m or el and C ounty . A ccor di ng t o M ay er chec k, B arbar a w i t hdr ew herdi vor ce compl ai ntand then r efi l ed i n 2002. M ay er chec k al l eged thatdefe ndantJ udge H athaw ay sig n e d a tem p o ra ryre stra in in g o rd e r th a t M a y e rc h e c k f iled to k e e p B a rb a ra a w a yf ro m h is dent al pr act i ce, butt hen l i ft ed the or derfol l ow i ng an ex pa r t e meet i ng w i t h B arbar a and herl aw y er . M ay er chec k fi l ed a w r i t t en compl ai ntagai ns tJ udge H athaw ayw i t h t he P r e s i d i n g J u d g e o f

W e s t mo r e l a n d Co u n t ya n d th e J u d i c i a l Co n d u c tBo a r d o f th e S u p r e me C our tof Penns y l vani a, and i nform ed the Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on. M ay er chec k w enton t o al l ege thatB arbar a i ntr oduced f r audul entdocument s and u n t ru t h f u l t e s t i mo n ya tt h e i r2 0 0 3 d i v o r c e h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g th e 2 0 0 0 c o n t r a c t . He as s er t ed thatJ udge H athaw ayr el i ed on thi s fal s e evi dence t o fi nd thatthe contr actw as u n e n f o rc e a b le , a n d o rd e re d M a y e rc h e c k to p a yB a rb a ra a lim o n yp e n d e n te lite .3

M ay er chec k fi l ed an a ppeal , w hi ch the Super i orC our tof Penns y l vani a deni ed as in te rl o c u to ry. D efe ndantJ udge Fel i ci ani appoi nt ed def endantM as t erFaj tt o pr es i de overthe pr ocee di ngs per t ai ni ng t o t he di s t r i but i on of the M ay er chec ks ’ as s et s . M ay er chec k all eg ed that B arb ara an d h er a tt o rne y , d ef en d an t W iker, failed to co m p lyw ith co u rt di r ect i ves and thatJ udge Fel i ci ani cons pi r ed w i t h B arbar a and W i ker . H e furt hercl ai m ed t hatW i kerfai l ed t o fol l ow M as t erFaj t ’ s 2006 or derr equi r i ng bot h par t i es t o payfee s for fil ing p re-tr ial stat em en ts, that h e f il ed a m o ti o n fo r san cti o n s ag ains t B arb ara an d W iker, and that , i n fur t her ance of the cons pi r acy , J udge Fel i ci ani and M as t erFaj tperm i t t ed B arbar a and W i kert o vi ol at e var i ous pr ocedur al rul es . M ay er chec k al s o al l eged thatt he D isc ip lin a ryB o a rd ’s f

a ilu re to a c t o n h is c o m p lain t re g a rd in g th e a b o v e v io latio n s is e v i d e n c e o f

i t s i n v o l v e me n ti n t h e c o n s p i r a c ya g a i n s th i m. M ay er chec k’ s compl ai nts oughta dec l ar at oryj udgm entthatw oul d enfor ce the 2000 di vor ce c ont r actand make t he def endant s r es pons i bl e forthei rfee s . H e s ought damages i n exce s s of ni nety - ei ghtm i l l i on dol l ar s on fede r al ci vi l r i ght s and s t at e l aw cl ai m s . T he def

endant s fi l ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s , w hi ch the M agi s t r at e J udge r ecomm ended the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant . T he M agi s t r at e J udge found thatthe D i s t r i ct C our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overM ay er chec k’ s equi t abl e and c i vi l r i ght s cl ai m s due t o t he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, t he D om es t i c R el at i ons E xcept i on t o fede r al j ur i s di ct i on, and E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t y . I n addi t i on, the M agi s t r at e J udge found that , even i f the4

c o u rt d id h a v e su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n , M a y e rc h e c k f a iled to sta te a c laim f

o r c iv il ri g h ts violati o n s o n w h ich re li ef co u ld b e g ran ted u n d er F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b )(6 ). F in a lly , the M a g istra te J u d g e d e ter m in e d th a t, giv e n M a y e rc h e c k ’s f a ilu re to s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef unde rt he C i vi l R i ght s A ct , the D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d s uppl ement al juri sd ict ion o v er h is r em ainin g stat e law claim s. A fter co n side ri n g M ay erc h ec k ’s obj ect i ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed, gr ant ed the mot i ons t o di s m i s s , and adopt ed the R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n a s its o p in io n . M a y e rc h e c k f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s or deri s pl enary . See Sant i ago v. G M A C M or t gage G r oup, I nc. , 417 F. 3d 384, 386 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “To survi ve a mot i on t o di s m i s s , a compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci entfac tual m at t er , acc ept ed as t rue, t o ‘ s t at e a c l ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ’ ” A s hcr oft v. I qb a l , 12 9 S. Ct . 19 37 , 19 49 ( 20 09 ) ( qu ot i ng Bel l A t l . Corp. v. Tw ombl y , 55 0 U. S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . I n deci di ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s , a courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe compl ai nt“pl eads fac tual cont entt hatal l ow s the courtt o dr aw the r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hatt he def

endanti s l i abl e fort he mi s conductal l eged. ” I d. III . A . J ur i s di ct i on 1. T he R ooker - Fel dm an D octr i ne T h e D istri ct C o u rtfirstd eterm ined that itlack ed juri sd ict ion o v er M ay erc h ec k ’s5

compl ai ntundert he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, w hi ch bar s di s t r i ctcour t s fr om r evi ew i ng ce rt ain s tat e c o u rtac ti o n s. S ee R o o k er v . F id. T rust C o . , 2 6 3 U . S . 4 1 3 (19 2 3 ); D . C . C o u rt of A ppeal s v. Fel dm an, 460 U . S. 462 ( 1983) . T he doctr i ne w i l l bara cl ai m i n fede r al cour tw hen the cl ai m : ( 1) “w as actual l yl i t i gat ed i n s t at e courtpr i ort o t he fi l i ng of the fede r al act i on, ” or( 2) “i s i nextr i cabl yi nt ert w i ned w i t h t he s t at e adj udi cat i on, m eani ng t hatfede r al r el i ef c an onl ybe pr edi cat ed upon a c onvi ct i on thatthe s t at e courtw as w ron g . ” In re K n ap p er, 40 7 F . 3 d 5 7 3 , 5 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In th is case , M ay erc h ec k ’s compl ai nts oughtenfor cementof al l of the pr ovi s i ons of the al l eged 2000 di vor ce contr act , and he ba s ed hi s cl ai m s fordamages on char ges thatthe s t at e court s m ade a se rie s o f w ro n g f u l d e c isio n s o n e v id e n tiary i ss u e s. H e e x p licitlyre q u e ste d th a t th e sta te cour t s ’ deci s i ons be overtur ned. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded that it la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w h is c la im s .

2. T he D om es t i c R el at i ons E xcept i on T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ydet erm i ned thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on underthe d o m e stic re latio n s e x c e p tio n to f e d e ra l ju risd ictio n . T h is e x c e p tio n d iv e sts f e d e ra l co u rts of j ur i s di ct i on overcas es “‘ i nvol vi ng t he i s s uance of a di vor ce, al i m ony , orchi l d cus t ody d ec ree . ’” M atus o w v . T ran s-C o u n tyT it le A g en cy , L L C , 5 4 5 F . 3 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (q u o tin g A n k e n b ra n d t v . R ich a rd s, 5 0 4 U .S . 6 8 9 , 7 0 4 (1 9 9 2 )). T h e re f o re , as to M ay er chec k’ s r eques tfordecl ar at or yr el i ef, the D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er a n o rd e r p e rt a in in g to a d iv o rc e d e c re e o r t o a lim o n y .6

3 . E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t Im m u n ity T he D i s ci pl i naryB oar d of the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tar gued thati tw as i m m une fr om s ui tundert he El eventh A m endment . T he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed, as the E l eventh A m endmenthas been i nt erpr et ed “t o m ake s t at es gener al l yi m m une fr om s ui tby pr i vat e part i es i n fede r al cour t . ” M C I T el ecomm . C orp. v. B el l A t l . Pa. , 271 F. 3d 491, 5 0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e im m u n itye x ten d s to sta te a g e n c ies a n d d e p a rtm e n ts, id ., a n d th is C our thas hel d t hatPenns y l vani a s t at e court s ar e age nci es of the Supr eme C our t . See C a llah a n v . C ityo f

P h ila., 2 0 7 F .3 d 6 6 8 , 6 7 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). A s n o n e o f th e e x c e p tio n s to E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t yappl i es , s ee M C I T el ecomm . C orp. , 271 F. 3d at503, t he D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yco n clud ed that M ay erc h ec k ’s claim s ag ains t th e D isci p li n ary B o a rd sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d a s b a rre d u n d e r th e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t. B . R ul e 12( b) ( 6) T he D i s t r i ctC our tw enton t o r eas on thateven i f i tw er e abl e t o exer ci s e s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on overM ay er chec k’ s ci vi l r i ght s and t or tcl ai m s , he fa i l ed t o s t at e a cl ai m forr el i ef unde rFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . T o s ur vi ve di s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) , a compl ai ntm us tcont ai n m or e than “[ t ] hr eadba r e r eci t al s of the e l e ment s of

a c a us e of

a c t i on , s up po r t e d b ymer e c on c l us orys t a t e ment s . ” I qb a l , 12 9 S. C t. a t 1 9 4 9 .7 1 . B iv e n s C laim W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatM ay er chec k has fai l ed t o s uffi ci ent l ypl ead a c laim a g a in st a n yd e f

e n d a n t u n d e r th e d o c trin e in B iv e n s v . S ix U n k n o w n N a m e d A g e n ts of Feder al B ur eau of

N ar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) . U nderB i vens , a pl ai nt i ff maybr i ng a cl ai m agai ns tfede r al offi cer s act i ng undercol orof l aw forvi ol at i ons of that i ndi vi dual ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . I d. at396- 97. M ay er chec k has notm ade a ny al l egat i ons abouta fe der al agent . A ccor di ngl y , he fa i l ed t o pl ead a pl aus i bl e cl ai m for re lief u n d e r B iv e n s, se e Iq b a l, 12 9 S . C t. at 1 9 4 9 , an d th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d is m is s e d th e c la im .

2 . A b so lu te J u d icia l Im m u n ity W e al s o agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatthe j udi ci al defe ndant s ar e i m m une fr om M ay er chec k’ s cl ai m s fordamages . T he doctr i ne of a bs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni t ybar s s uch cl ai m s s o l ong as t he i ndi vi dual w as act i ng w i t hi n hi s orherj udi ci al capa ci t yand had j ur i s di ct i on t o s o act . See Stum p v. Spar km an, 435 U . S. 349, 356- 57 ( 1978) . A s the D i s t r i ctC our tfound, al l of the def endantj udges w er e ac t i ng w i t hi n t hei rj ur i s di ct i on t hr oughoutM ay er chec k’ s di vor ce a nd s uppor tpr ocee di ngs . M ay er chec k fai l ed t o pl ead s u f f ic ie n t f a c ts to a llo w a n in f

e re n c e o th e rw is e . S e e Iq b a l, 1 2 9 S . C t. a t 1 9 4 9 . M ay erc h ec k arg u es o n ap p ea l th at “‘p rog ressive ’ l aw interpre tat ion ” sh o u ld allow fo r a c h a n g e in th e d o c trin e , an d c ites re c e n t ex a m p les o f w e ll-p u b liciz e d ju d icia l co rru p tio n in L u z e rn e C o u n ty . W e f

in d h is a rg u m e n t u n p e rsu a siv e in th is c o n tex t. W e se e n o e rro r in8

th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t allo w in g M a y e rc h e c k to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t w o u ld b e f u tile . S e e P h illip s v . C o u n ty o f A lle g h e n y , 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 2 4 , 2 4 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 3. C l ai m s U ndert he C i vi l R i ght s A ct A s s um i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overanyof M ay er chec k’ s cl ai m s , t he o n lyrem ainin g d ef

en d an ts are W iker a n d B arb ara . H e a rgu ed that W iker a n d B arb ara c o n sp ire d w ith th e o th e r d e f e n d a n ts to e n su re a f

a v o ra b le o u tco m e f

o r B a rb a ra a n d to d e p riv e h im o f

a c c e ss to th e c o u rts. W e a g re e th a t M a y e rc h e c k f a iled to sta te a c laim agai ns tei t herdefe ndantunder42 U . S. C . §§ 1983, 1985, or1986. Fi r s t , t o s ucce ed on a § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m, a p l a i n t i f

f mu s ts h o w th a tth e d e f e n d a n t , a c t i n g u n d e rc o l o ro f s t a t e l a w, d ep ri v ed h im o f a fe d era l r igh t. W est v . A tkins, 48 7 U . S . 4 2 , 4 8 (19 8 8 ). N eith er B arb ara norW i kerw as act i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw , and w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthat M ay erc h ec k ’s asse rt ion s tha t th eyco n sp ir ed w ith the o ther jud ici al de fe n d an ts are m ere concl us or yal l egat i ons . T her efor e, he fa i l s t o s t at e a c l ai m under§ 1983. See I qbal , 129 S . C t. at 1 9 4 9 . M a y e rc h e c k ’s c laim s u n d e r se c tio n s 1 9 8 5 a n d 1 9 8 6 a re sim ilarly s pecul at i ve, and the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n det erm i ni ng thathe had f ai l ed t o s t at e a pl aus i bl e cl ai m forr el i ef. I d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed M ay er chec k’ s r emai ni ng s t at e l aw c la im s f o r l a c k o f

s u p p le m e n ta l ju ri s d ic tio n . I V. M a y e rc h e c k a d d s a c laim o n a p p e a l th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o n sp ire d w ith th e sta te9

c o u rts to “ re tra c t” h is c a se to c o u rt a f ter h a v in g f

irst d e sig n a ted it fo r A ltern a tiv e D isp u te R e s o lu tio n (“ A D R ” ). H e d o e s n o t a lle g e a n yf a c ts to s u p p o rt th is a s s e rt io n o f c o n s p ir a c y . In anyeven t , t he record reveal s that the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed the j ud i ci al defe nd ants ’ m ot i on t o be exe m ptfr om t he A D R pr ogr am onl yunt i l fi nal di s pos i t i on of thei rm ot i ons t o d i sm i ss. V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.