GLD
- 093 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 11

- 3915

____________ STEVEN ADDLESPURGER, Appellant v. TOM CORBETT, Pennsylvania State Attorney General in his official and individual capaciti es; STEPHEN ZAPPALLA, Allegheny County District Attorney in his official and individual capacities; DONNA JO MCDANIELS, President Judge Allegheny County Fifth Judicial District in her professional and individual capacities; RAYMOND BILLOTTE, Administration of Pennsylvania Courts Fifth Judicial District in his official and individual capacities; KIM BERKELEY CLARK, Administrative Judge in her professional and individual capacities; PATRICK QUINN, Domestic Relations Services in his official and individual cap acities; DAVID WECHT, Judge in his official and individual capacities; WILLIAM MULLEN, Sheriff in his official and individual capacities; DAN ONORATO, Chief Executive of Allegheny County and in his official and individual capacities; RAMON RUSTIN, Jail War den in his official and individual capacities; DANIEL RICHARDS, Department of Public Welfare in his official and individual capacities; MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, County solicitors in his official and individual capacities; KATE BARKMAN, Department of Court record s in her professional and individual capacities

__________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 2

- 09

- cv - 01064) District Judge: David Stewart Cercone

________________

__________________2 Submitted on Motions for Summary Affirmance Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 20, 2012 Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : February 9, 2012 )

____________ OPINION

_______ _____
PER CURIAM Appellant Steven Addlespurger filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania , seeking injunctive relief against the Family Division of the Allegheny County Cou rt of Common Pleas. Addlespurger , who was a defendant in a support action filed by his wife, Julie Addlespurger, sought to enjoin an upcoming contempt proceeding , and complain ed that he had been subjected to

numerous contempt orders , and had been incarcer ated in the Allegheny C ounty J ail

. He contend ed that the prior contempt orders were entered in violat ion of his due process rights , and he sought an order enjoining the Family Division from holding the upcoming

c ontempt proceeding , and an order staying fu rthe r proceedings in the Family Division

. Addlespurger consented to proceedings before a Magistrate Judge , 28 U.S.C. §
636 (c)(1) , who viewed the complaint as a petition for writ of habeas corpus , 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and transferred it h ere for consideration of whether to grant leave to file a successive petition

. ( Addlespurger had filed a prior habeas corpus petition , challenging the Family Division’s contempt orders for non

- payment of child support. ) Upon its3

transfer here, w e conclude d that Addlespurger’s pro se complaint should have been viewed as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief based on alleged due process violations in the Family Division proceedings. A ccordingly, we transfer red th e matter back to the d istrict c ourt for further pr oceedings. On remand, the case was reassigned to a district judge, and Addlespurger then filed an amended complaint , alleging, in a rambling, unclear, and disorganized fashion, that 13 defendants violated his constitutional rights , essentially by prosecuting and imprisoning him pursuant to child support and contempt orders. The complaint contained allegations of fraud, forgery, harassment , and conspiracy. Addlespurger sought m oney damages, and named as defendants former Attorney General Tom Corbett and Daniel Richards of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare ’s Bureau of Child Support Enforcement (the “State defendants”) ; several Family Division judges and administrators , including President Judge Donna Jo McDaniels, Administrative Judge Kim Berkeley Clark, Judge David Wecht, Court Administrator Raymond Billotte, and Family Division Administrator Patrick Quinn (the “judicial defendants”); Allegheny County Executive
Dan On orato, District Attorney Steven Zappala, Court Records Director Kate Barkman, Warden Ramon Rustin , and Solicitor Michael Wojcik (the “County defendants”); and Sheriff William Mullen.
T he defendants moved in their respective groups to dismiss the amended complaint , Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6); each group and Sheriff Mullen raised numerous bases for dismissing the amended complaint. In an order entered on August 1, 2011, the District Court granted the motions and dismissed the amended complaint. The court4

painstakingly worked through the counts in the complaint, and determined that there was no basis for the action to proceed. In an order entered on September 20, 2011, the District Court denied a timely filed motion for reconsideration. Addlespurger appe als. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The majority of the appellees have moved in their respective groups for summary affirmance of the District Court’s orders dismissing the amended complaint and motion for reconsideration. Add lespurger has submitted a res ponse in opposition to summary action , which we have considered. We will summarily affirm. Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, we may summarily dispose of an appeal when it clearly appears that no substantial question is present ed by the appeal. We exercise plenary review over a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal ,

s ee Weston v. Pennsylvania , 251 F.3d 420, 425 (3d Cir. 2001) , and w e “are free” to affirm the judgment “on any basis which finds support in the record , ” s ee Bernitsky v. United S tates , 620 F.2d 948, 950 (3d Cir. 1980). A motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff is unable to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
A s explained by the District Court, Addlespurger’s claims in the main flow from defe ndant Judge David Wecht’s having issued orders with the intent of carrying out Pennsylvania’s child support laws. J udges are absolutely immunized from a civil rights suit for money damages arising from their judicial acts. Mireles v . Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 355

- 56 (1978). The order of a5

judge e ntered against Addlespurger in the Family Division proceedings may not serve as a basis for a civil action for damages. See id. In addition, the defendant c ourt administrator s are similarly absolutely immunized from a suit for damages under the doctrine of quasi

-

judicial immunity, because their activities were an integral part of the judicial process. A court administrator or deputy administrator , who is c harged with the duty of carrying out facially valid court orders , enjoy s quasi

- judicial immunity from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct prescribed by that order. See Gallas v. Sup reme Court of Pennsylvania , 211 F.3d 760, 772

- 73 (3d Cir. 2000)

. See also Kincaid v. Vail , 969 F.2d 594, 601 (7 th Cir. 1992); Valdez v. City and County of Denver , 878 F.2d 1285, 1288

- 90 (10 th Cir. 1989). Sheriff Mullin’s involvement in the alleged civil rights violations was based on the actions of his deputies , who jailed Addlespurger pursuant to Judge Wecht’s orders. He too is entitled to quasi

- judicial immunity under these circumstances. Accordingly, dismissal of the amended complaint against Judges
W echt and Clark , Deputy Administrator Quinn , and Sheriff Mullins was proper

. 1 The action against President Judge McDaniel s and Court Administrator Billotte was properly dismissed because a civil rights claim cannot proceed exclusively on a theory of respon deat superior. Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.

1 There appears to be a claim of “e xtortion” against defendant Quinn with respect to the precise calculation of the monthly child support payments under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16

- 1 , see Amended Complaint, at ¶ ¶ 10

- 12 , 20

- 21, but, t o state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States , West v. Atkins , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An allegation of a violation of the state child support rules will not suffice and thus this claim properly was dismissed. The claim against State defendant Daniel Richards in his individual capacity (he was alleged to have collaborated with defendant Quinn) fails for the same reason.6

1988). Liability under section 1983 cannot be imposed absent personal involvement in the alleged actions, see Rizzo v. Goode , 423 U.S. 362, 375

- 77 (1976); Chincello v.
Fenton , 805 F.2d 12 6, 133

- 34 (3d Cir. 1986). As to the County defendants, Addlespurger’s claims are especially unclear, but, again, there do not appear to be any allegations of personal involvement in the purported violation of his rights , and liability cannot proceed on a theory of respondeat superior, see id. Accordingly, the amended complaint was properly dismissed as to the County defendants as well

. Addlespurger’s motion for reconsideration did not cure these deficiencies. As to the State defenda nts, to the extent they were sued in their official capacity, the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment . Any official capacity claim fails because the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General and Pennsylvania Department of P ublic Welfare share in the immunity conferred to the States by the Eleventh Amendment. See Hafer v. Melo , 502 U.S. 21, 25

- 27 (1991); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). The claim s against former Attorney General Corbett in his in dividual capacit y fail because Addlespurger failed to allege any personal involvement in the purported violation of his rights , Rizzo , 423 U.S. at 375

- 77 ; Chincello , 805 F.2d at 133

- 34

. Last, Addlespurger alleged that he was routinely subjected to strip se arches, upon being jailed for contempt, pursuant to a policy established by County defendant Warden Rustin. See Amended Complaint, at ¶ 65

. These searches, he allege d , violate the Fourth Amendment. The District Court properly held that this claim was fo reclosed by our decision in Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders , 621 F.3d 296, 311 (3d Cir. 2010),7

petition for cert

. granted , 131 S. Ct. 1816 (2011), in view of the fact that Addlespurger does not allege that any of the searches were conducted in an unr easonable manner. In addition, the allegations of a conspiracy among the defendants to violate Addlespurger’s civil rights does not survive Rule 12(b)(6). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level....” Tw ombly , 550 U.S. at 555. Further more , there is no private cause of action for a violation of the feder al mail and wire fraud statutes, and we agree with the District Court’s disposition of Addlespurger’s excessive force and intentional infliction of emotio nal distress claim s
. For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the appellees’ motions , and summarily affirm the order s of the District Court dismissing the amended complaint and denying the motion for reconsideration

. 2

2 We do so without regard to whether the appellees specifically moved for summar y affirmance.