2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-25-2011

Jill Jones-Soderman v. Paul Dasher

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3111

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Jill Jones-Soderman v. Paul Dasher" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1378.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1378
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3111

___________

JILL JONES-SODERMAN,

Appellant

v.

HONORABLE MARGARET MARY MCVEIGH; PAUL DASHER, 

PH.D; ANITA RAE MANNS, ESQ.; STEPHEN SCHIPPIONE, ESQ.; 

MICHAEL KUHNS; KAY MCCORMACK; RICHARD GRUBER; NEW 

JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DIVISION OF 

CONSUMER AFFAIRS; HONORABLE EDWIN H. STERN; JON S. CORZINE, 

in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New Jersey; NEW JERSEY 

STATE LEGISLATURE; LESLIE ARONSON, Former Executive Director 

Board of Social Work Examiners; MARILYN BAIR, Former Deputy 

Attorney General; SUSAN BERGER, Deputy Attorney General; 

JODI KRUGMAN, ESQ., Deputy Attorney General; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 08-cv-01887)

District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 20, 2011

Before: BARRY, JORDAN AND GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 25, 2011)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM
2

Jill Jones-Soderman appeals pro se from the order of the District Court dismissing 

her amended complaint. We will affirm.

I.

Jones-Soderman’s amended complaint arises from the loss of her license to 

practice social work in New Jersey. According to Jones-Soderman, Judge Margaret Mary 

McVeigh of the New Jersey Superior Court wrote a letter in 2001 to the New Jersey 

licensing agency expressing her concern with Jones-Soderman’s conduct in connection 

with a family court matter. That letter precipitated an investigation, during which the 

agency was not able to confirm that Jones-Soderman possessed a PhD as she had 

represented. The investigation led in turn to a revocation proceeding, during which

Jones-Soderman was represented by Anita Manns. In 2003, Jones-Soderman signed a 

consent order agreeing to stop presenting herself as a doctor and to the suspension of her 

license for nine months.

The licensing agency later received information that Jones-Soderman continued to 

practice in New Jersey during that time (and continued to hold herself out as a doctor). 

That information led to a second revocation proceeding, during which Jones-Soderman 

was represented by Stephen Schippione. The second proceeding concluded when JonesSoderman signed a second consent order in 2004 agreeing to the permanent suspension of 

her New Jersey license. She later applied for reinstatement of her license, and that 

application remains pending. 

Jones-Soderman filed and amended her federal complaint in 2008, asserting 
3

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 

(“RICO”) and state law against numerous defendants whom she holds responsible for the 

loss of her license. The defendants include Judge McVeigh, assistant attorneys general 

and hearing officers involved in her current and former revocation proceedings, former 

New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, the New Jersey legislature, and other state 

employees and agencies (collectively the “state defendants”). Jones-Soderman also 

named the three private attorneys she retained to represent her during those revocation 

proceedings. In general, she alleges a conspiracy among all the defendants to deprive her 

of her license. Among the relief she requested was $13 million in damages, reinstatement 

of her license, and the enactment of certain laws protecting the rights of children.

Defendants Manns and Schippione answered the amended complaint, but the state 

defendants moved to dismiss it on numerous grounds under Rule 12(b)(6). During 

argument on that motion, Manns and Schippione orally moved for dismissal on statute of 

limitations grounds, and we will treat their motions as ones for judgment on the pleadings 

under Rule 12(c). On June 17, 2009, the District Court granted all motions and explained 

its reasons for doing so on the record. The District Court also dismissed the action 

without prejudice as to defendant Richard Gruber (a private attorney involved in the 2001 

family court matter), whom Jones-Soderman had been unable to serve. The case 

remained pending against Michael Kuhns (Jones-Soderman’s third privately retained 

attorney), whom she had served but who had not responded to the complaint. The 

District Court informed Jones-Soderman that she could seek a default judgment against 
4

Kuhns and told her that she would have to “decide whether you want to move forward.” 

(June 17, 2009 Trans. at 75.)1

Nothing more of substance transpired for some ten months until the case was 

called for possible dismissal for failure to prosecute. The District Court scheduled a 

status conference and, on May 20, 2010, entered an order directing Jones-Soderman to 

file a submission in furtherance of her case by June 4, 2010, “or the complaint shall be 

dismissed in its entirety.” The District Court received nothing further from JonesSoderman by that date and entered its final order dismissing the case with prejudice under 

Rule 41(b) on June 15, 2010. Jones-Soderman appeals.2

II.

Jones-Soderman challenges the orders of June 17, 2009, and June 15, 2010.

In the first order, the District Court dismissed her claims against the state defendants on 

various grounds, including judicial immunity for the defendant judges, prosecutorial 

 

1 On August 1, 2009, the District Court added a statement on the record that it had 

dismissed the § 1983 claims against Manns and Schippione on the additional ground that 

those privately retained attorneys were not state actors.

2 Defendants Manns and Schippione initially asserted crossclaims for indemnity 

and contribution against the other defendants, but when the District Court dismissed 

Jones-Soderman’s complaint and terminated the action in its entirety it effectively 

resolved those crossclaims. Cf. Owens. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 654 F.2d 218, 220 n.2 

(3d Cir. 1981) (mere grant of summary judgment for defendant/crossclaimant on 

plaintiff’s claim did not resolve crossclaim against another defendant). Thus, we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a 

complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c). See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 534 (3d 

Cir. 2002). We review the dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. See

Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 258 (3d Cir. 2008).
5

immunity for the defendant assistant attorneys general, Eleventh Amendment immunity 

for the state agencies and employees, and the statute of limitations on most of her claims. 

It also dismissed her claims against defendants Manns and Schippione on statute of 

limitations grounds, and later added the ground that they are not state actors for § 1983 

purposes. 

Jones-Soderman has not meaningfully challenged these rulings. She argues that it 

is “impossible” to determine the District Court’s reasons for dismissal because they are 

not stated in the June 17 order itself. The District Court, however, explained its reasons 

on the record. (June 17, 2009 Trans. at 61-75.) Jones-Soderman was present, and the 

District Court provided her with a copy of the transcript. (Docket No. 47.) She also 

argues that the District Court’s order does not state that it considered her opposition to 

the motions, but the District Court clearly addressed her arguments. She further makes 

generalized assertions that her pro se complaint was entitled to liberal construction and 

that various defendants acted beyond the scope of their duties, but she does not specify 

how she believed the District Court erred in construing her complaint and we discern no 

error in that regard. Finally, she argues that defendants waived their statute of limitations 

defenses by answering her amended complaint, but that is not the case. The state 

defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion instead of answering, and defendants Manns and 

Schippione pleaded the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense before orally 

moving for dismissal on that ground. 

Jones-Soderman also has not meaningfully challenged the District Court’s second 
6

order, in which it dismissed the remainder of her complaint for failure to prosecute. The 

District Court applied the proper standard and concluded that Jones-Soderman’s 

dilatoriness, her personal responsibility therefor, and the lack of merit to her claims 

weighed in favor of dismissal. See Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 

868 (3d Cir. 1984). Jones-Soderman does not argue that the District Court abused its 

discretion in so concluding. Instead, her only argument in this regard is that she actually 

complied with the District Court’s direction to file a submission by June 4, 2010. JonesSoderman argues that she sent the District Court a letter on June 3 but that it did not reach 

the court until she re-sent it on June 21. Jones-Soderman’s letter does not undermine the 

District Court’s June 15 ruling, however, because it was not before the District Court at 

that time. Nor did she seek relief on the basis of these allegations under Rule 60(b) in the 

District Court. In sum, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in 

dismissing this action under Rule 41(b).

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.