DL D- 1 7 7 NOT 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. 10- 1457

___________ D A V ID G E O R G E L U S IC K , A ppel l ant v . D A V ID C . L A W R E N C E , C o u rtA d m inistrator; J O S E P H H . E V E R S , P r o th o n a t a ry; V IV IA N T . M ILL E R , C l erk of Q uart er Sessi on s; N A T A S H A L O W E , P o st T ri al S u p erv isor; SE T H W I L L I A M S, D i s tr i ctA tt orney *; H U G H J . B U RN S , D i s tr i c tA tt o rn e y; J U D G E PA M E L A PR Y O R C O H E N D E M B E , Pr es i dent * (P u rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 4 3 (c)(2))

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- 05581) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e df

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 A pr i l 22, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 29, 2010)“Sect i on 1405 s et s forth the pr ocedur e byw hi ch a pr i vat e i ndi vi dual can s eek t o have 1 a di s tr i ctatt orneyconvi ct ed of am i s demeanori n offi ce and r emove hi m orherfr om offi ce ba s ed on w i l l ful and gr os s negl i gence i n the exe cut i on of the dut i es of hi s orher o ff ice.” L ev en tryv . T u low itzk i, 8 0 4 A . 2 d1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 3 (P a. C o m m w . C t. 2 0 0 2 ). 2 _________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al i n 1994, D avi d L us i ck w as convi ct ed of s ever al cr i m es i n the C o u rto f C o m m o n P leas f o r P h il ad elph ia C o u n ty . H e w as se n tenc ed to an ag g reg ate term o f 1 2 -3 5 y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. A c c o rd in g to L u sic k , in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , h e a ttem p ted to fi l e a mi s conductcompl ai ntunder16 P. S. § 1405 agai ns tthen- D i s tr i ctA tt orneyof P h i l a d e l p h i a L yn n e A b r a h a m a n ds e v e r a l s u b o r d i n a t e s i n h e ro f f i c e . A p p a r e n t l y, 1 L usi ck’s com plai nt w as neve r docke t ed b ythe P hil adelphi a C l erk of Q uart er Sessi on s, so he r efi l ed i ti n A ugus t2009. I n D ece m ber2009, L us i ck fi l ed the i ns t antci vi l r i ght s compl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. T her ei n, L us i ck al l eged that h is F if th a n dF o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts to d u e p ro c e ss w e re v io late dw h e n h is ori ginal § 1 40 5 co m plai nt w as m i shand l ed b ythe P hil adelphi a C l erk of Q uart er Sessi on s. H e al l eged thatthe mi s handl i ng w as the pr oductof a c ons pi r acyconcoc t ed bythe var i ous publ i c off

i ci al s and j udi ci al empl oy ees named i n the i ns t ants ui t . L us i ck al s o r eques t edY o u n g er v . H arris, 4 0 1 U . S . 3 7 (19 7 1 ). 2 W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w b o th o r d e r s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n dF e d . R. 3 A p p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A ) ( i v ) . S e e L a z a r i d i s v . We h m e r , 5 9 1 F . 3 d6 6 6 , 6 6 9 ( 3 dC i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . We ex erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s su a sp o n te dism issal of L u sick ’s compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . I d. at670. W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derdeny i ng L us i ck’ s R ul e 59( e) m ot i on. I d. at669. 3 i njunct i ve rel i ef an d thatthe D i stri ctC ou rt“t ake sup plem entalj uri sdi ct i on ” ov er hi s § 14 05 proceed i ng s. I nvoki ng the Y ounger abs t ent i on doctr i ne, the D i s tr i ctC ourts ua s pont e di s m i s s ed 2 L us i ck’ s compl ai nt , pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915A ( b) ( 1) , forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w h ich re li ef

co u ld b e g ran ted. T h e D istri ct C o u rtstat ed that “[ b ]ec au se p lai n ti ff’s m isc o n d u c t ca se is o n g o in g in th e P h ilad e lp h ia C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s, th is C o u rt, i n defe r ence t o the pr i nci pl es of comi tyand fe der al i s m w i l l noti nt er fer e i n the s t at e j udi ci al pr oces s abs enta s how i ng of i rr epar abl e i nj ury , a ‘ fl agr antand pat ent ’ vi ol at i on of an expr es s cons t i tut i onal pr ohi bi t i on, orotherextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng equ i t able r el i ef, ” and that “[t ]he fact s al l eged byplai nti ff d o n ot m eetthese r equi r ement s . ” Lusi ck then fi l ed a mot i on t o al t eroramend the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s j udgm ent pur s uantt o R ul e 59( e) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, cont endi ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtm i s appl i ed Y ounger . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed Lusi ck’ s m ot i on, concludi ng thathe had notm etthe s t andar d forr el i ef unde rR ul e 59( e) . L us i ck appe al ed from bo th the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders . 3 H a v in g g ra n ted L u sic klea v e to p ro c e e din f o rm a p a u p e ris, w e m u st d ism iss h isS ee N eit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 9 0 U . S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ). 4 See LA R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. 5 S ee T o u rsch er v . M cC u ll o u g h , 1 8 4 F . 3 d2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 6 L azar i di s , 591 F. 3d at670. 7 4 ap p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) i f i th a s n o a r g u ab l e b a s i s i n l a w. 4 A l t ernat i vel y , w e mayt ake s um m aryact i on i f i tcl ear l yappear s thatL us i ck’ s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i ons . W e mayaff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourton anybas i s that 5 fi nds s upporti n the r ecor d. 6 A tthe out s et , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourterr ed i n i t s appl i cat i on of Y o u n g er a b sten ti o n . Y o u n g er a b sten ti o n is ap p rop ri ate o n lyw h en three req u ir em en ts are sa tisf ied : “( 1 ) th e re a re o n g o in g sta te p ro c e e d in g s th a t ar e ju d icia l in n a tu re ; (2 ) th e sta te pr ocee di ngs i m pl i cat e i m port ants t at e i nt er es t s ; and ( 3) the s t at e pr ocee di ngs aff or d an adequa t e opportuni tyt o r ai s e the fe der al cl ai m s . ” T he l as tof thes e r equi r ement s i s not 7 s at i s fi ed her e. A s L us i ck not ed i n hi s fi l i ngs bel ow , hi s § 1405 compl ai ntconce rned per cei ved m i s conductbythe form erD i s tr i ctA tt orneyof Phi l adelphi a and he rs ubor di nat es r el at ed to L u s ic k ’s 1 9 9 4 tr ia l a n dc o n v ic tio n . T h e s c o p e o f p ro c e e d in g s b ro u g h t u n d e r 1 6 P .S . §§ 1405 and 1406 i s l i m i t ed: onl ythe di s tr i ctatt orney ’ s al l eged pe r s onal m i s conducti s at i s s ue. B ycontr as t , L us i ck’ s fede r al ci vi l r i ght s s ui ti s r oot ed i n the al l eged f ai l ur es of cert ai n courtper s onnel t o docketL us i ck’ s § 1405 compl ai nt . L us i ck ar gues thattheL i abi l i tyunder§ 1405 m us tbe bas ed on the D i s tr i ctA tt orney ’ s per s onal conduct , and 8 cannotbe bas ed on a r es pondeats uper i ortheory . See W i l ki ns v. M ar s i co, 903 A . 2d 1281, 1 2 8 6 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 6 ). B ell A tl . C o rp. v. T w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U . S . 5 4 4 , 5 7 0 (20 0 7 ). 9 A sh cro ft v . Iqb al, 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (20 0 9 ). 10 See i d. at1950. 11 I d. at1949. 12 5 mi s h a n d l i n g o f

h i s c o mp l a i n ta mo u n t e dt o v i o l a t i o n s o f h i s f e d e r a l d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s . Of th e se v e n n a m e dd e f

e n d a n ts in th e f

e d e ra l su it, a t lea st s ix w o u ldb e in ap t d e f e n d a n ts in m isc o n d u c t p ro c e e d in g s b ro u g h t u n d e r 1 6 P .S . § 1 4 0 5 . W e f a il t o se e h o w L u sic kc o u ld 8 ra ise h is d u e p ro c e ss c laim s in th e § 1 4 0 5 c a se a g a in st th e m a jo rityo f th e d e f e n d a n ts in the i ns t antci vi l r i ght s act i on. D esp it e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s error, w e w il l aff irm it s jud g m en t bec au se L u sick ’s compl ai ntfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. I n or dert o s urvi ve di s m i s s al , a compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci entfac tual m att er , acc ept ed as true, t o “s t at e a cl ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ” T he pl aus i bi l i tys t andar d “as ks form or e than 9 a s heerpos s i bi l i tythata def endanthas act ed unl aw ful l y . ” W el l - pl eade d fac tual cont ent 10 is a c c e p ted a s tru e f

o r p u rp o se s o f

d e term in in g w h e th e r th e c o m p lain t sta tes a p lau sib le cl ai m forr el i ef. M or eover , “[a ] cl ai m has fac i al pl aus i bi l i tyw hen the pl ai nt i ff pl eads 11 f a c tu a l co n ten t th a t allo w s th e c o u rt to d ra w th e re a so n ab le in f e re n c e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is lia b le f o r th e m is c o n d u c t a lle g e d .” 12See B urkettv. C unni ngham, 826 F. 2d 1208, 1221 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( “Pr oof of pr ej udi ce 13 i s gener al l ya nec es s arybutnots uffi ci entel ementof a due pr oces s cl ai m . ”) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). D . R . byL . R . v. M i ddl e B ucks A r ea V ocat i onal T ech. Sch. , 972 F. 2d 1364, 1377 ( 3d 14 C i r . 1992) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i tt ed) ; s ee a l s o C apogr os s o v. Supr eme C t . of N . J . , 588 F. 3d 180, 184 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( percur i am) ( “al l egat i ons of a c ons pi r acym us tpr ovi de s om e fa ctual bas i s t o s upportthe exi s t ence of the el ement s of a c ons pi r acy : agr eement 6 B as ed on the s par e al l egat i ons i n L us i ck’ s compl ai nt , w e cannotr eas onabl yi nfer thathi s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen hi s or i gi nal § 1405 compl ai ntw as not p ro p e rlyd o c k e ted . In ste a d , the m o st p lau sib le in f e re n c e f ro m h is a lleg a tio n s (f

a v o ra b le to L us i ck) i s thathe w as the vi ct i m of a bur eauc r at i c bl under , w hi ch i s s ur el ynota fe der al d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n . T h e c o rre sp o n d e n c e L u sic ka ttac h e dto h is c o m p lain t d ire c tly s u p p o rt s th a t in f

e re n c e . B uteven i f w e coul d i nferthe exi s t ence of funda m ent al l yunfai rconductbythe publ i c off

i ci al s named i n L us i ck’ s s ui t , the compl ai ntdoes noti dent i fyhow L us i ck w as pr ej udi ced bythatconduct . Speci fi cal l y , notw i ths t andi ng anyact i ons ori nact i on by 13 co u rtp erso n n el, L u sickw as e v en tuallyab le t o fil e h is § 1 4 0 5 co m p lai n t. M o reo v er, L u sic kd o e s n o t su g g e st th a t th e c o m p lain t w a s ru led u n tim e lyo r o th e rw ise p ro c e d u ra lly d e f e c tiv e f o r a re a so n a ttribu tab le to th e d e f e n d a n ts in th e in sta n t ac tio n . W e a lso c a n n o t, w ith o u t m o re , inf

e r so m e so rt o f

c o n sp ira c yh a tch e db ye m p lo y e e s o f th e P h ilad e lp h ia C l erk of Q uart er Sessi on s and v ari ou s j ud i ci al off i cers t o v i olat e L usi ck’s ci vilri gh t s:

“ m e re c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n s o f d e p riv a tio n s o f

c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts a re in su f f icie n t to s t at e a § 1985( 3) cl ai m . ” Furtherm or e, L us i ck’ s r el i ance on 18 U . S. C . § 241 14an dco n ce rt ed ac ti o n . ”) (q u o ti n g C rab tr ee v . M u ch m o re, 90 4 F . 2 d1 4 7 5 , 1 4 8 1 (10 th C ir .

1 9 9 0 )) . C f. U n it ed S tat es v . P h il ad elph ia, 6 4 4 F . 2 d1 8 7 , 1 9 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). 15 See Phi l l i ps v. C ountyof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 228 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( “I n the eve nt 16 a c o m p lai n t fail s to state a c lai m , u n less am en d m en t w o u ld b e f u ti le, the D istri ct C o u rt m u st give a p lai n ti ff

the o p p o rtu n ityto am en dh er c o m p lai n t. ”); see a lso S h an e v . F au v er, 2 1 3 F . 3 d1 1 3 , 1 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). ( cr i m i nal i zi ng cons pi r acyt o i m pede the exe r ci s e of f eder al r i ght s ) i s i nappr opr i at e, as that sta tu te d o e s n o t g iv e rise to a c o g n iza b le f e d e ra l cla im in a c iv il su it. 15 T he D i s tr i ctC ourtfai l ed t o ei ther( A ) gr antL us i ck l eave t o amend, pr i ort o i t s s ua sp o n te d ism iss a l o f

th e c o m p lain t, or(B ) sp e a kto th e in e q u ityo r f u til ityo f a m e n d m e n t. 16 It sh o u ldh a v e d o n e o n e o r th e o th e r. W e h a v e c o n sid e re dth e p o ss ib ili tyo f a m e n d m e n t, h o w e v e r, a n dc o n c lu d e th a t it w o u ld b e f u tile . A ccordi ng l y , becau se this app eal present s no sub st anti al qu est i on , and becau se L us i ck’ s compl ai ntfai l s t o s t at e a vi abl e due pr oces s cl ai m , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i rm the D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.