2009 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 11-3-2009 

# M ark W irfel v . Franc i s Le ahey 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 . 09-1740

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " M ark W ir fel v . F r anc i s L e ahey " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 311. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/311NOT 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. 09- 1740

___________ M AR K FELI X W I RFEL, A ppel l ant

v. F R A N C IS J. L E A H E Y ; N O R M A N A . K R U M E N A K E R ; T I M OT HY P . CR E ANY

____________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 00311) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

______________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember2, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed N ovember3, 2009)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antM ark Fel i x W i r fel appea l s the M ar ch 2, 2009, or derof the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia d ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t w ith2

p rejud ice. Fo r th e f

o ll o w ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. I. W i r f e l h a s a h i s t o r y w i th th e C o u r to f C o m m o n P l e a s o f

C a m b r i a C o u n ty, Penns y l vani a, goi ng atl eas tas farback a s a 1997 cus t odyact i on i ni t i at ed byW i r fel ’ s exw i fe c oncerni ng thei rtw o chi l dr en, overw hi ch J udge Leaheypr es i ded. D ur i ng the cust od yproceed i ng s, W i rfel beg an w ri t i ng l et t ers t o Jud ge L eahey . B ased up on these l ett er s , W i r fel w as eventual l ychar ged w i th t err or i s t i c thr eat s , att empt ed har as s m ent , and h a ra ss m e n t b yc o m m u n ica tio n s. In D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 8 , W irf e l p lea d e d n o lo c o n ten d e re to the cha r ges and J udge K rum enac kers ent ence d hi m . W hi l e s ervi ng the s ent ence , W i r fel b e g a n w riting lette rs to Ju d g e K ru m e n a c k e r. B a se d u p o n th e lette rs, W irf e l w a s a g a in char ged w i th t err or i s t i c thr eat s . W i r fel pl eade d nol o cont ender e t o the cha r ge i n M ar ch 2003 and J udge C r eanys ent ence d hi m t o a s us pended s ent ence . B eca us e a s us pended s ent ence i s notperm i s s i bl e underPenns y l vani a l aw , W i r fel w as ul t i m at el yr el eas ed fr om p r i s o n o n a wr i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . S e e Wi r f e l v . Cm wl th . o f

P a . , 3 : 0 5 - c v - 0 0 0 2 5 ( W. D. P a. A u g . 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 ). W i r fel i ni t i at ed thi s ci vi l act i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our ti n N ovember2007, nami ng Ju d g e s L e a h e y , K ru m e n a k e r, an d C re a n ya s d e f e n d a n ts (th e “

ju d icia l d e f

e n d a n ts” ). In h is compl ai nt , W i r fel cl ai m s thatthe j udi ci al defe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght t o fr ee s peec h bys ubj ect i ng hi m t o “fa l s e arr es t s ( s ) , convi ct i on( s ) and obs truct i on of j us t i ce. ” W i r fel appende d t o hi s compl ai nta 1998 or deri s s ued byJ udge Leaheyi n theW ir f e l a ls o s e e k s to h a v e c ri m in a l c h a rg e s b ro u g h t a g a in s t th e ju d ic ia l d e f e n d a n ts . 1 H o w e v e r, s u c h re lie f

m a yn o t b e o b ta in e d in a c iv il a c tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . 3 s t at e courtcus t odyact i on, w hi ch pr ohi bi t ed W i r fel fr om havi ng cont actw i th hi s chi l dr en due t o W i r fel ’ s m ent al condi t i on. W i r fel cl ai m s thatJ udge Leahey ’ s or dervi ol at ed W i r fel ’ s Fi r s tA m endment“[r ] i ghtt o voi ce opi ni on of R el i gi on t o hi s ow n tw o chi l dr en. ” W i r fel al l eges thathe r es ponded t o J udge Leahey ’ s or der“w i th l ett er s w r i t t en of onl yt he truth no m att erw hat , ” thatthe l ett er s di d notthr eat en J udge Leahey ’ s l i fe, and thatJ udge L e a h e yw ro n g f

u lly h a d h im a rr e s te d . W i rfel ’s com plai nt cl ai m s that he suffered ph y si cal and em oti on al i njur i es, pri m ari l ydu e t o the l oss of t i m e w i th h i s chi l dren. H e seeks m on et arydam ages. 1 T h e ju d icia l d e f

e n d a n ts m o v e d to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t o n th e g ro u n d s o f a b so lu te j ud i ci al i m m un i ty . W i rfel op po sed t he m oti on and fi l ed seve ral add i t i on al m oti on s, l ar gel yconce r ni ng chi l d s uppor tpaym ent s . O n M ar ch 2, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the m o ti o n to d ism iss, d ism issed the c o m p lai n t w ith p rejud ice, an d d en ied W ir fe l’ s p e n d in g m o tio n s a s m o o t. W irf e l f iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. II. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr antthe mot i on t o di s m i s s on the gr ounds of abs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni ty . See G al l as v. Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a,4

2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he Supr eme C our tl ong has r ecogni zed thatj udges ar e i m m une fr om s ui tfor m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s a ri s in g f ro m th e irju d ic ia l a c ts . S e e M ir e le s v . W a c o , 5 0 2 U .S . 9 , 9 ( 19 91 ) ; Forr e s t e rv. W hi t e , 48 4 U. S. 21 9, 22 5- 27 ( 19 88 ) ; Stump v. Spa r kman , 43 5 U. S. 349, 355- 56 ( 1978) . J udi ci al i m m uni tyappl i es unl es s the j udge’ s act i ons ei therw er e nonj udi ci al orw er e t aken i n t he compl et e abs ence of j ur i s di ct i on. See G al l as , 211 F. 3d at 7 6 8 -6 9 (c itin g M ir e le s , 5 0 2 U .S . a t 1 1 -1 2 ). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t a b s o lu te ju d ic ia l im m u n ity a p p lie s in th is c a s e . A ft ercl os el ycons i der i ng the al l egat i ons of the compl ai nt , w e agr ee. W i r fel ’ s cl ai m ed i nj ur i es s t em di r ect l yfr om courtor der s ent er ed byJ udges L eahe y , K rum enake r , and C r e a n y i n th e i rc a p a c i t i e s a s j u d g e s f o rth e C o u r to f

C o m m o n P l e a s o f

C a m b r i a C o u n ty, i ssued w hil e t heyw ere pr esi ding ov er ci vil and cri m i nal m at t ers i nv olvi ng W i rfel . T hese o rd e rs m a yn o t se rv e a s th e b a sis f o r a n a w a rd o f

c iv il d a m a g e s. T h e ju d icia l d e f e n d a n ts are ent i t l ed to the p rot ect i on of ab sol ute j ud i ci al i m m un i tyfrom W i rfel ’s cl ai m s, and , as a r es ul t , the D i s tr i ctC our tappr opr i at el ydi s m i s s ed the compl ai nt . See G al l as , 211 F. 3d at 770. W e al s o agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatamendm entof the compl ai nt w o u ld b e f

u ti le. S ee G ray so n v . M ay v iew S tat e H o sp . , 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In su p p o rt o f

h is a p p e a l, W irf

e l ar g u e s th a t ju d icia l im m u n itysh o u ld n o t ap p lyin thi s cas e bec aus e “the ac t i ons ( and or der s ) of the j udge( s ) w er e pl ai nl yi ncompet entand c lea rlya g a in st th e law . . . . ” H o w e v e r, W irf e l’s c laim o f

ju d icia l er ro r is n o t su f f icie n t to5

ov ercom e t he ap pli cat i on of judi ci al i m m un i ty . S ee S tum p, 43 5 U . S . at35 6-57; s ee al so G al l as , 211 F. 3d at769. W i r fel has notar gued thatthe j udi ci al defe ndant s act ed i n a nonj udi ci al capa ci tyorout s i de of thei rj ur i s di ct i on and, bas ed upon ourr evi ew of the a lle g a tio n s o f

th e c o m p la in t, w e d is c e rn n o b a s is f o r s u c h a n a rg u m e n t. III . B ec au se th e jud ici al de fe n d an ts are en ti tl ed to jud ici al i m m u n ity , w e w il l aff irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.