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 6-18-2007 

# Thomp son v

. E va s V i ll age 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 . 06-1804

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 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 " Thomps on v

. E vas V i ll ag e " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 928. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/928NOT 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- 1804

________________ S T E VE N C . T HOMP S ON, A ppel l ant v. E V A ' S V I L L A G E A N D S H E L T E R I N G P R O G R A M; DE RR I CK WI L L I AM S , I NDI VI DUAL L Y; GR E GOR Y ANDE RS ON, I NDI VI DUAL L Y; GL OR Y P E RE Z , I NDI VI DUAL L Y; ANT HONY MCC ANT S , I NDI VI DUAL L Y; BR YANT J E NKI NS , I NDI VI DUAL L Y; G R E A T E R P A T E R S O N A R E A , IN C .; W O R L D S E R V IC E O R G A N IZ A T IO N , IN C .; NARCOTI CS ANO NYM OUS WO RLD S ERVI CES , I NC.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 02548) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 6, 2007 Bef or e : RE N D ELL , H A RD I M A N A N D CO W EN , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( Fi l ed: J une 18, 2007)

### 2 _______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM St even Thom ps on appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng appel l ees ’ m ot i ons fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. T h e p roc ed u ral hist o ryo f th is case an d the d etail s o f a p p ell an t’ s cl ai m s ar e w el l - know n t o t he part i es , s etfor th i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on, and nee d notbe di s cus s ed atl ength. B r i efl y , T hom ps on al l eged i n hi s compl ai ntthathe w as barr ed fr om a N ar cot i cs A nonym ous m eet i ng bas ed on hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs . H e al l eged that a p p e lle e s ’ a c tio n s v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts a s w e ll a s f e d e ra l a n d s ta te s ta tu te s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed appe l l ees ’ m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent , and Thom ps on f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under12 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng appel l ees ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . G al l o v. C i tyof Phi l adel phi a, 161 F. 3d 217, 221 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . A gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent w i l l be af

fi r m ed i f ourr evi ew r evea l s that“ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fa c ta nd tha tthe movi ng pa r tyi s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (c). W e re v iew the f ac ts i n a li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the p artyag ains t w h o m su m m ary j ud gm ent w as ent ered. S ee C oo l spri ng S t on e S up ply , Inc. v. A m eri can S t at es L i fe Ins. C o . , 1 0 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T h o m p so n a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to re a so n a b ly

### 3

acc om m odat e hi s di s abi l i ty . H ow ever , he does nots peci fyanyacc om m odat i on he r equi r ed w hi ch w as deni ed. I n the D i s tr i ctC our the as ked the D i s tr i ctC our tt o s t op “rus hi ng the pr ocee di ngs , r ai s i ng unr el at ed, i rr el evantorconfus i ng i s s ues t o di s tr actm e” as w el l as “deny i ng or al ar gum entort el ephone c onfer ence . ” The docketr efl ect s thatt he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed Thom ps on s ever al ext ens i ons of t i m e. T hom ps on has not expl ai ned w hyhe w as ent i t l ed t o or al ar gum ent ; hi s vol um i nous fi l i ngs demonstr at e that h e w a s a b le to c o m m u n ic a te w ith th e C o u rt th ro u g h h is w ri tte n p le a d in g s . T hom ps on ar gues thatthe appe l l ees ar e notent i t l ed t o i m m uni tyunderthe N ew J er s eyC har i t abl e I m m uni tyA ct . H ow ever , i n i t s N ovember14, 2005, l ett eror der , the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatC har i t abl e I m m uni tyA ctonl yappl i es t o cl ai m s of negl i gence and thatT hom ps on had notr ai s ed anynegl i gence cl ai m s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe C har i t abl e I m m uni tyA ctw as i nappl i cabl e. T hom ps on cont ends thatthe appe l l ees w er e ac t i ng as agent s of the s t at e w hen they v iolated h is Firstan d F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t r igh ts. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt thatthe appe l l ees ar e nots t at e ac t or s . See, e. g. , L es hko v. Ser vi s , 423 F. 3d 337, 341 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (re g u latio n a n d re c e ip t o f g o v e rn m e n t f

u n d s, w ith o u t m o re , d o e s n o t co n stitu te sta te a c tio n ). T h u s, T h o m p so n ’s c laim s a risin g u n d e r th e F irst a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment s , § 1983, and § 1985 fa i l . W e furtheragr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat appel l ees w er e ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton T hom ps on’ s cl ai m s ar i s i ng under42 U . S. C . § 2000e.

### 4

T hom ps on ar gues thatappel l ees vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe N ew J er s eyL aw A gai ns tD i s cr i m i nat i on. H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overT hom ps on’ s N ew J er s eys t at e l aw cl ai m s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on ori n deny i ng T h o m p so n ’s m o tio n to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t. Fi nal l y , w e addr es s T hom ps on’ s ar gum ent s thatD i s tr i ctC our tJ udge Pi s ano and M agi s tr at e J udge A r l eo s houl d have r ecus ed themsel ves . A l i t i gant ’ s di s pl eas ur e w i t h t he Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s l e g a l ru l i n g s i s n o ta n a d e q u a t e b a s i s f o rr e c u s a l . S e c u r a c o mm C ons ul t i ng, I nc. v. Secur acom I nc. , 224 F. 3d 273, 278 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T hom ps on ar gues th a t h is f ilin g a la w s u it a g a in s t J u d g e s P is a n o a n d A rl e o is a g ro u n d f o r r e c u s a l. T h is C o u rth as a lr ea d yad d resse d this i ssu e in a p ri o r ap p ea l i n this case . In T h o m p so n v . E v a’s V il lage , C . A . N o . 0 5 -46 1 8 , w e tho rou g h lyad d resse d T h o m p so n ’s a lleg a tio n s a n d in f

o rm e d h im th a t h is la w su it ag a in st th e Ju d g e s d id n o t p ro v id e a b a sis forr ecus al . T hom ps on’ s unfounded a ccus at i ons agai ns tthe D i s tr i ctC our tJ udges and thei rs t aff

ar e i nappr opr i at e. “Li t i gant s ar e under s t andabl ydi s appoi nt ed w hen theydo not pr evai l i n court , butthatdoes notgi ve them t he l i cens e t o att ack the i nt egr i tyof the jud ici ary . S u ch ab u sive co n d u ct w il l no t be to lerated , n o t eve n fro m a p ro se li ti g an t. ” In re M an n , 2 2 9 F . 3 d 6 5 7 , 6 5 9 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). F o r th e a b o v e re a so n s, a s w e ll as th o se se t f o rth b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. T h o m p so n ’s m o tio n f o r a tto rn e y s f

e e s a n d c o sts is

### 5

d e n ie d . T h o m p s o n is n e ith e r a n a tto rn e yn o r t h e p re v a ilin g p a rt y . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1988( b) . T hom ps on’ s m ot i ons t o s tr i ke appe l l ee G r eat erPat er s on A r ea’ s br i ef a nd for s anct i ons ar e deni ed.