2007 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 6-29-2007 

# R a do cesky v

. M unley 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 . 06-3633

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_2007

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 2007 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 " R a doc e sk y v . M unley " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 856. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/856BL D- 1 0 5 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 . 06- 3633

________________ NI CHOLAS RADOCES KY; F AI TH F RAZI ER; NI CH OL AS R. RA DOC E S KY; DAUGH T E R R ADOC E S KY v. RO BE RT M U N LEY ; CA RM EN M I N O RA ; A M Y PH I LLI PS; A N D R E W JA R B O L A , D .A . L a c k a w a n n a C o u n ty ; C H A R L E S W IT A C O N IS , A ss ista n t P u b lic D e f e n d e r; M IC H A E L B A R R A S S E , L a c k a w a n n a C o u n tyJu d g e ;

UNKNO WN CI T Y S OL I CI T OR N ic h o la s N . R a d o c e s k y , A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00553) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

__________________________ S u b mi t t e d Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B)

J anuary25, 2007 B efore: M cK ee, F uen t es and R oth, C i rcui tJudg es ( Fi l ed: J une 29, 2007 )

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________2

P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t N ich o las R a d o c e sk yf iled a n in f

o rm a p a u p e ris c iv il righ ts a c tio n in U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns ts ever al j udges o f th e L ac k aw an n a C o u n tyC o u rto f C o m m o n P leas, m em b ers o f th e D istri ct A tt o rne y ’s O ffi ce, and mem ber s of the Publ i c D efe nder ’ s O ffi ce, al l egi ng thatthes e i ndi vi dual s t ook advant age of

hi m i n convi nci ng hi m t o pl ead gui l t yt o a mi s demeanorpos s es s i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance char ge. O r i gi nal l y , hi s bai l w as r evoked w hen he di d notpl ead g u iltyto a D e liv e ryc h a rg e in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e ter m s o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t. H is publ i c def

endert hen w or ked outa new agr eementthatw oul d r es ul ti n hi s r el eas e i f he w oul d pl ead gui l t yt o a mi s demeanorpos s es s i on char ge. H e di d s o, and tw o other m isd e m e a n o r c o u n ts w e re d ism iss e d a s a re su lt o f th e p lea . R a d o c e sk yis n e u ro lo g ica lly di s abl ed and s uffe r s fr om or gani c br ai n s yndr om e, appar ent l yas a r es ul tof a s er i ous aut om obi l e ac ci dent . I n an amendm entt o t he compl ai nt , he i ndi cat ed thathe w as s eeki ng c o m p e n sa to rya n d p u n iti v e m o n e yd a m a g e s f o r th e sa k e o f

h is f a m ilya n d to se c u re th e ir fu ture I n an or derent er ed on J une 29, 2006, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai nt underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. T he courtr eas oned thatj udges ar e i m m uni zed f r om a s ui tfor damages foract s done i n t he per form ance of thei rj udi ci al dut i es . Stum p v. Spar km an, 43 5 U . S . 34 9, 35 6-57 (19 78 ). T he d eci si on w hetheror not t o ini t i at e or prosecut e a caseR a d o c e sk ya lso so u g h t th e c o u rt’s a ss ista n c e in b rin g in g tw o u n id e n tifie d in m a tes to 1 ju stic e f o r se x u a llya ss a u lti n g h im . T h e c o u rt n o ted f o r h is b e n e f

it th a t ith a d n o a u th o rity t o b ri ng charges againstt he inm at es. 3 is c o m p lete lyd isc re tio n a ryw ith p ro se c u to rs a n d a lso is a b so lu telyim m u n ize d f ro m a su it fordamages . I m bl erv. Pachtm an, 424 U . S. 409 ( 1976) . Fi nal l y , no l i abi l i t yat t ache s u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 f o r re p re se n tatio n o f

a c rim in a l d e f

e n d a n t, be c a u se a p u b lic defe nderdoes notactundercol orof l aw i n r epr es ent i ng hi s orhercl i ent . Pol k C ountyv. D ods on, 454 U . S. 312 ( 1981) . R adoce s kyfi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, 1 c o n ten d in g th a t h e h a d a lleg e d a n u m b e r o f “ d e c lar a to ryd e c re e v io latio n s” w h ich w o u ld n o t b e im m u n iz e d f

ro m s u it. R adoce s kyappea l s . H i s m ot i on t o appea l i n form a paupe r i s w as gr ant ed byour C le rk a n d h e w a s n o tif

ie d th a t h is a p p e a l w o u ld b e c o n s id e re d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). W e w ill d ism iss th e a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i). A n a p p e a l is fr i vol ous w hen i tl acks an ar guabl e bas i s ei t heri n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). U n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ), d ism iss a l o f a c o m p lain t is p ro p e r o n lyif it i s cl eart hatno r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed underanys etof fa ct s thatcoul d be pr oved cons i s t ent w i t h t he al l egat i ons . C onl eyv. G i bs on, 355 U . S. 41, 45- 46 ( 1957) . I ti s cl earher e thatno r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed underanys etof fa ct s thatcoul d be pr oved cons i s t entw i t h t he al l egat i ons . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the amended compl ai nton t he bas i s of i m m uni t i es and the abs ence of s t at e ac t i on. T hi s act i on does noti nvol ve a de m and forT hom as G i l hol y , t he Super i nt endentof the Lackaw anna Count yj ai l , al s o w as named 2 as a def endanti n t he or i gi nal compl ai nt , and the Penns y l vani a B oar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e, and/ orcert ai n of i t s offi ci al s , w er e named i n an amendm ent . T her e ar e no al l egat i ons di r ect ed att hes e def endant s and theyw er e thus ent i t l ed t o di s m i s s al under R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) a s w e ll. 4 p rosp ec ti v e re li ef

to w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s i m m u n it ies an aly sis m igh t no t app ly . In addi t i on, H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , bar s the ac t i on beca us e the convi ct i on has neverbeen i nval i dat ed. 2 W e w i l l dis m i ss the ap peal as fri vo l ou s.