NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 18-1304

__________

STEPHEN UKO UDOH,

Appellant

v.

HERMINIA MOREIRA; DAWN SOLARI; STEPHEN B. RUBIN

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3-14-cv-02929)

District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 2, 2019

Before: MCKEE, COWEN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 29, 2019)

___________

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.
2

Stephen Uko Udoh appeals from an order of the United States District Court for 

the District of New Jersey, which dismissed his civil rights suit. We will affirm the 

District Court’s judgment.

In May 2014, Udoh, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the District Court 

against a state prosecutor, a public defender, and a state court judge who were involved in 

involuntarily committing him to the Ann Klein Forensic Center. Udoh claimed that the 

Defendants violated his constitutional rights by institutionalizing him because he refused 

to plead guilty (to unspecified charges). The complaint alleged that experts had reported 

that Udoh was not mentally ill but “was only upset for being terminated unlawfully from 

his state job.” Udoh sought $35 billion in damages.

The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The District Court 

granted the motions, ruling, among other things, that Udoh failed to state a claim upon 

which relief could be granted, for numerous reasons. The District Court declined to give 

Udoh an opportunity to amend, because, among other reasons, he essentially had already 
3

had an opportunity to do so,1and because some of the defects could not be cured by 

amendment. Udoh timely appealed.2

Udoh’s brief fails to raise any challenge to the District Court’s decision to dismiss 

his complaint, aside from saying that a “claim was stated.” Appellant’s Brief at 2. He 

has thus waived review of the District Court’s decision. See Barna v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of 

Panther Valley Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2017) (noting that “we have 

consistently refused to consider ill-developed arguments” or those not properly preserved 

due to passing and conclusory statements). Nonetheless, to the extent his brief could be 

construed as contesting the District Court’s decision, Udoh’s complaint was properly 

dismissed, for the reasons stated in the margin.3 

 

1

In December 2013, Udoh filed a complaint against the same Defendants (among 

others), based on the same involuntary commitment. See D.N.J. Civ. No. 13-cv-07384. 

The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and 

granted Udoh 30 days to amend the complaint. He did not do so; instead, he filed two 

new complaints based on the same incident. Those complaints were both dismissed with 

prejudice before Udoh filed the complaint at issue here. See D.N.J. Civ. No. 13-cv07491 and D.N.J. Civ. No. 13-cv-07492.

2 We have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review the District Court’s order of dismissal de novo. See Newark Cab Ass’n v. 

City of Newark, 901 F.3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2018); Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 

346 (3d Cir. 2016). “We may affirm a district court for any reason supported by the 

record.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir. 2011).

3 The District Court properly held that the state court judge and prosecutor were entitled 

to absolute immunity. See Gallas v. Sup. Ct. of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000); 

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 410 (1976). The Court also properly held that the 

public defender was immune from suit to the extent she was performing traditional 

functions as counsel. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). To the extent 
4

In his brief, Udoh states that “[t]he District Court erred by refusing to transfer 

Appellant [sic] case to Newark,” because “[t]hey are all ‘RACISTS’ in the United States 

District Courthouse in Trenton, NJ.” Appellant’s Brief at 1. His claims of racism are 

completely unsupported and do not provide any reason for overturning the District 

Court’s judgment.

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

 

Udoh claimed that the public defender intentionally conspired with state officials to 

deprive Udoh of his rights, his allegations were devoid of facts and conclusory, and they 

were properly dismissed because they failed to allege a plausible claim upon which relief 

could be granted.