UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AARON J. BRESSI, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-1878

 Plaintiff :

 v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY 

COURT, et al., 

:

:

 Defendant :

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the court in this fee-paid pro se civil rights lawsuit is 

the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito Jr., 

(Doc. 24), dated October 20, 2023. Judge Saporito conducted the legally 

required screening review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, (Doc. 17), and 

recommends that it be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a timely 

objection to Judge Saporito’s report. (Doc. 25). However, based on its own 

review of the record as described below, the court agrees with Judge 

Saporito’s recommendation and will dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint

with prejudice. 

I. Legal Standard

When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of 

a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of 

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 8
- 2 -

the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Brown v. 

Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard of review is 

de novo, the district court “may also, in the exercise of sound judicial 

discretion, rely on the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and 

recommendations.” Bynum v. Colvin, 198 F. Supp 3d 434, 437 (E.D. Pa. 

2016) (citing United Stated v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)). 

District courts also have an on-going statutory obligation to 

preliminarily review a pro se complaint to determine whether any claims are 

frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

See 28 U.S.C. '1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This statutory text mirrors the language of 

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a 

complaint should be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief, a court 

must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and accept “all reasonable 

inferences that can be drawn from them after construing them in the light 

most favorable to the non-movant.” Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & 

Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). However, a court is not required 

to accept legal conclusions or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 8
- 3 -

cause of action.” Id.; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice”).

When reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must construe such 

complaints liberally “so ‘as to do substantial justice.’” Alston v. Parker, 363 

F. 3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting R. Civ. P. 8(f)). The court must apply 

the relevant law even if the pro se plaintiff does not mention it by name. 

Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F. 3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Higgins v. 

Beyer, 293 F. 3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)). 

II. Discussion 

Since the report correctly states the procedural and factual background 

of this case, (Doc. 24, at 1-3), it will not be repeated herein. In short this is a 

lawsuit against a host of state courts, judges, prosecutors, court clerks, 

prothonotaries, and hearing officers challenging their handling of Plaintiff’s 

pro se filings in connection with post-conviction collateral relief proceedings

in his underlying state criminal case.

At the onset Judge Saporito found that the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and the Northumberland 

County Court of Common Pleas are arms of the Pennsylvania state 

government, and thus they are immune from suit under the Eleventh 

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 8
- 4 -

Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Benn v. First Judicial Dist. 

Of Pa., 426 F. 3d 233, 240 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that the Pennsylvania 

courts are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit). Plaintiff does 

not object to this finding. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against these three 

state court defendants will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Judge Saporito also found that Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining 

individual Defendants are all bared by absolute judicial, quasi-judicial, or 

prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiff’s claim against Judge Rosini, the presiding 

judge in his state court criminal proceedings, is barred by absolute judicial 

immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1991) (per curium). 

Plaintiff’s claims against county prosecutors, Mr. Matulewicz and Ms. 

Zenzinger, are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. 

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). Plaintiff’s claims against court clerks 

and prothonotaries based on their handling of litigation papers he submitted 

for filings with their courts, are barred by quasi-judicial immunity. See 

Marcedes v. Barrett, 453 F.2s 391, 392 (3d Cir. 1971). Likewise, Plaintiff’s 

claim against Ms. Skoff, in connection with her actions taken in her role as a 

custody and PFA hearing officer for the court of common pleas, is barred by 

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 8
- 5 -

quasi-judicial immunity as well. See Lepre v. Tolerico, 156 Fed. App’x 522, 

525 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curium).

Plaintiff objects to these findings arguing that judges and district 

attorneys, including assistant district attorneys, will be deprived of their 

immunity and subject to liability when they acted in the clear absence of all 

jurisdiction. In support of this proposition Plaintiff cites Stump v. Sparkman, 

where the Supreme Court held “[a] judge will not be deprived of immunity 

because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in 

excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has 

acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978).

However, in the same case the Supreme Court also found that where a judge 

presides over a court of general jurisdiction, “neither the procedural errors 

he may have committed nor the lack of a specific statute authorizing his 

approval of the petition in question rendered him liable in damages for the 

consequences of his actions.” Id. at 359–60. 

Here Plaintiff does not plead any facts that would indicate Judge Rosini 

acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. In his objection to Judge Saporito’s 

report Plaintiff appears to assert that Defendants failed to follow court rules 

and procedures, but according to the case cited by Plaintiff, Judge Rosini, 

who presides over a court of general jurisdiction, is not liable in damages for 

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 8
- 6 -

procedural errors or even acting without specific statutory authorization. 

Likewise, the authority cited by Plaintiff does not even mention an exception 

to prosecutorial immunity. Thus, neither Judge Rosini nor the individual 

prosecutor Defendants will be deprived of their absolute judicial or 

prosecutorial immunity. 

Plaintiff appears to further object to Judge Saporito’s findings regarding 

Defendants’ immunity on the basis that these Defendants violated his clearly 

established statutory and constitutional rights and therefore are not entitled 

to qualified immunity. However, Judge Saporito found that Defendants are 

entitled to absolute judicial, quasi-judicial, and prosecutorial immunity not 

qualified immunity. Thus, this objection is of no moment.

Plaintiff also generally objects to Judge Saporito’s report on the basis 

that Judge Saporito did not liberally construe his complaint and fails to 

distinguish between Plaintiff’s due process and government negligence 

claims. However, based on its review of the complaint the court finds that 

Judge Saporito liberally construed the complaint in making his 

recommendations. Based on the plain text of Plaintiff’s amended complaint 

the exact or even general nature of his claims is unclear. Nonetheless Judge 

Saporito construed the largely incoherent statements in the amended 

complaint into a potential due process claim. The fact that Judge Saporito 

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 8
- 7 -

does not distinguish such a claim from Plaintiff’s government negligence 

claim ultimately does not matter because all the Defendants are entitled to 

either sovereign, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutorial immunity from all 

claims whether they sound in tort or the constitution. Accordingly, all of 

Plaintiff’s claims against the individual Defendants will be dismissed.

Judge Saporito recognizes that generally a district court must permit a 

curative amendment, prior to dismissing a complaint, unless an amendment 

would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F. 

3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). However, he found that based on the fact alleged 

in Plaintiff’s amended complaint and Plaintiff’s substantial history of meritless 

or frivolous serial litigation, further amendments would be futile.1 This court 

1 See Bressi v. Gembic, No. 23-5318, 2023 WL 6558730 (U.S. Oct.

10, 2023) (dismissing petition for writ of certiorari and instructing that, “[a]s 

petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed 

not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless 

the docketing fee . . . is paid and the petition” complies with booklet 

formatting rules); Bressi v. McCloud, No. 23-5316, 2023 WL 6558728 (U.S. 

Oct. 10, 2023) (same); Bressi v. Brennen, No. 23-5317, 2023 WL 6379069 

(U.S. Oct. 2, 2023) (same); see also Bressi v. Pa. Parole Bd., No. 4:23-CV00440, 2023 WL 5184965 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2023); Bressi v. 

Northumberland Cnty. CYS, Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-1776, 2023 WL 

3919751 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2023), R&R adopted, 2023 WL 3919543 (M.D. 

Pa. June 9, 2023), appeal filed, No. 23-2156 (3d Cir. June 29, 2023); Bressi 

v. Pa. Parole Bd., No. 1:21-CV-01265, 2022 WL 617117 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 

2022), aff ’d per curiam, No. 22-1462, 2022 WL 17337570 (3d Cir. Nov. 30,

2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2485 (2023); Bressi v. McCloud, Civil Action 

No. 4:18-cv-01345, 2019 WL 7372778 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2019), R&R 

(footnote continued on next page) 

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

agrees. Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once and even when 

viewed in the light most favorable to him his amended complaint is still devoid 

of facts cable of supporting a cognizable claim against any Defendant let 

alone those entitled to sovereign or absolute immunity. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s amendment complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. 

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing the Report and Recommendation of Judge 

Saporito, (Doc. 24), will be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of 

the court. Plaintiff’s objections, (Doc. 25), will be OVERRULED, and his 

amended complaint, (Doc. 17), will be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk 

of Court will be directed to close this case. An appropriate order follows. 

S/ Malachy E. Mannion_ MALACHY E. MANNION

 United States District Judge

DATE: January 5, 2024

22-cv-1878

adopted, 2019 WL 7290430 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2019), aff ’d per curiam, No. 

20-1077, 2021 WL 5054351 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 

1383 (2022); Bressi v. Brennen, Civil Action No. 4:17cv-01742, 2019 WL 

5092529 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2019), R&R adopted, 2019 WL 4386897 (M.D. 

Pa. Sept. 13, 2019), aff ’d per curiam, 823 Fed. App’x 116 (3d Cir. 2020), 

cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1705 (2021); Bressi v. Gembic, Civil Action No. 4:17-

cv-01405, 2018 WL 3596859 (M.D. Pa. July 2, 2018), R&R adopted, 2018 

WL 3584694 (M.D. Pa. July 26, 2018), aff ’d per curiam, 752 Fed. App’x 113 

(3d Cir. 2019),cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 166 (2019).

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 8