UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

AARON J. BRESSI, #MC-9898,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY 

COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-01878

(MANNION, J.)

(SAPORITO, M.J.)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This is a fee-paid federal civil rights action. The incarcerated 

plaintiff, Aaron J. Bressi, filed his pro se amended complaint on January 

23, 2023. (Doc. 17.)

The pro se amended complaint names twelve defendants: (1) the 

Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas;1 (2) the Superior Court 

of Pennsylvania; (3) the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; (4) Hon. Paige 

Rosini, the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas judge who 

1 The pro se amended complaint names “Northumberland County 

Court,” which we have liberally construed to mean the Northumberland 

County Court of Common Pleas. See generally Mala v. Crown Bay 

Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244–46 (3d Cir. 2013) (discussing a court’s 

obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings and other submissions, 

particularly when dealing with imprisoned pro se litigants).

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 9
- 2 -

presided over the underlying state court criminal proceedings against 

Bressi;2 (5) Anthony Matulewicz, the Northumberland County district 

attorney and a prosecutor in the underlying state court criminal 

proceedings; (6) Robyn E. Zenzinger, the Northumberland County first 

assistant district attorney and a prosecutor in the underlying state court 

criminal proceedings; (7) Jamie Saleski, the prothonotary of the 

Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas; (8) Marsha Skaff, a

Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas custody and PFA 

hearing officer; (9) Joseph D. Seletyn, the prothonotary of the 

Pennsylvania Superior Court; (10) Jennifer Traxler, a deputy 

prothonotary with the Pennsylvania Superior Court; (11) Elizabeth E. 

Zisk, the chief clerk of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; and (12) Amy 

Dreibelbis, a deputy prothonotary with the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania.

The exact nature of Bressi’s claims is not entirely clear. He appears 

2 Commonwealth v. Bressi, Docket No. CP-49-CP-0001513-2016 

(Northumberland Cnty. (Pa.) C.C.P.). A district court, of course, may 

properly take judicial notice of such state court records, as well as its 

own. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d 

Cir. 2007); Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cnty., 108 F.3d 486, 

498–99 (3d Cir. 1997); Pennsylvania v. Brown, 373 F.2d 771, 778 (3d Cir. 

1967).

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 2 of 9
- 3 -

to assert due process claims related to the defendants’ handling of pro se

filings he submitted to each of them, mostly in connection with postconviction collateral relief proceedings in the underlying state criminal 

proceedings.3 But it is clear that this action should be dismissed.

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 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). Accordingly, we recommend 

that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against these three defendant state 

courts be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4

3 Claims against the hearing officer, Attorney Skoff, appear to 

concern her handling of Bressi’s pro se application for PFA against the 

mother of his children, who appears to be the victim of the assault 

charged in the underlying state court criminal proceedings against him.

4 The court may properly raise the issue of its subject matter 

jurisdiction over the state courts as defendants sua sponte. See Liberty 

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742, 750 3d Cir. 1995) 

(“Federal courts have an ever-present obligation to satisfy themselves of 

(continued on next page)

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 9
- 4 -

Based on the allegations of the amended complaint, viewed in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff, Bressi’s claims against the remaining 

individual defendants are all barred by absolute judicial, quasi-judicial, 

or prosecutorial immunity. Bressi’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 curiam); Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768–69 (3d 

Cir. 2000); Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F. Supp. 2d 596, 660 (E.D. Pa. 2014).

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

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

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); Walker v. City of Philadelphia, 436 

Fed. App’x 61, 62 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 

F.2d 1454, 1463–64 (3d Cir. 1992). His claims against the several state 

court staff members—a chief clerk and several prothonotaries and deputy 

prothonotaries—based on their handling of litigation papers he 

submitted for filing with their courts, are barred by quasi-judicial 

immunity. See Marcedes v. Barrett, 453 F.2d 391, 392 (3d Cir. 1971); 

their subject matter jurisdiction and to decide the issue sua sponte . . . .”); 

see also Johnson v. United States, Civil No. 1:CV-08-0816, 2009 WL 

2762729, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2009).

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 4 of 9
- 5 -

Lockhart v. Hoenstine, 411 F.2d 455, 459–60 (3d Cir. 1969); Davis v. 

Philadelphia Cnty., 195 F. Supp. 2d 686, 688 (E.D. Pa. 2002). His claim 

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

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

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

522, 525 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Rose v. Cnty. of Lehigh, No. CIV. A. 

01-13, 2001 WL 1085044, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2001). Accordingly, we 

recommend that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against all of the individual 

defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

The Third Circuit has instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable 

to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit a 

curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or 

futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

In this case, based on the facts alleged in the pro se amended complaint

and the plaintiff’s substantial history of meritless or frivolous serial 

litigation,5 it is clear that any further amendment would be futile. See 

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

10, 2023) (dismissing petition for writ of certiorari and instructing that, 

(continued on next page)

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 5 of 9
- 6 -

Jones v. SCO Family of Servs., 202 F. Supp. 3d 345, 350 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 

2016) (considering evidence outside of the pleadings for limited purpose 

of whether to grant leave to amend); Lauter v. Anoufrieva, 642 F. Supp. 

2d 1060, 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“A court may consider factual allegations 

outside the complaint in determining whether to grant leave to amend.”); 

U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. United Limousine Serv., Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 432, 

445 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Therefore, we recommend that the plaintiff’s claims 

“[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-CV-00440, 2023 WL 5184965 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2023); Bressi v. 

Norhumberland 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 

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 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 6 of 9
- 7 -

be dismissed without leave to amend.

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that:

1. The plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the three state court 

defendants—the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of 

Pennsylvania, and the Northumberland County Court of Common 

Pleas—be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant

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

2. The plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the remaining individual 

defendants—Hon. Paige Rosini, Anthony Matulewicz, Robyn E. 

Zenzinger, Jamie Saleski, Marsha Skaff, Joseph D. Seletyn, Jennifer 

Traxler, Elizabeth E. Zisk, and Amy Dreibelbis—be DISMISSED for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and

3. The clerk be directed to mark this case as CLOSED.

Dated: October 20, 2023 s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. 

JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 7 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

AARON J. BRESSI, #MC-9898,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY 

COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-01878

(MANNION, J.)

(SAPORITO, M.J.)

NOTICE 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the 

foregoing Report and Recommendation dated October 20, 2023. Any 

party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant 

to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:

Any party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed 

findings, recommendations or report addressing a 

motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 

or making a recommendation for the disposition of a 

prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 

Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve 

on the magistrate judge and all parties, written 

objections which shall specifically identify the portions 

of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to 

which objection is made and the basis for such 

objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local 

Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the report or specified 

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 8 of 9
- 2 -

proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 

by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need 

conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or 

where required by law, and may consider the record 

developed before the magistrate judge, making his or 

her own determination on the basis of that record. The 

judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses 

or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.

Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and 

Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

Dated: October 20, 2023 s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.

JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 24 Filed 10/20/23 Page 9 of 9