NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 9

- 3 6 0 7

__________

W I L S O N K

. B A Q U E R O

, Appellant

v.

JENNIFER MENDOZA; FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE;

CHRISTINE TARDIF, Senior Probation Officer;

JUDGE ART HUR M. BIRKEN; KONSTANTIN FELDMAN;

JUDGE LINDA MALLOZZI; JUD GE THOMAS K. ISENHOUR

_________ ___________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of N e w J e r s e y

(D.C. Civil Action No. 18

- cv

- 15081 )

District Judge: Ho no rable K e v i n M c N u l t y

____________________________________

Su bmitted Pursuant to Third Circu it LAR 34.1(a)

J u l y 2 4

, 2 0 2 0

Before: J O R D A N

, B I B A S

, a n d P H I P P S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : September 16, 2020 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

* This dispos ition i s not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitut e binding precedent.2 W i l s o n K

. B a q u e r o a p p e a l s t h e o r d e r o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e

D i s t r i c t o f N e w J e r s e y g r a n t i n g t h e a p p e l l e e s ’ m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s h i s c o m p l a i n t

. W e w i l l

a f

f

i r m

.

B e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a n d the r e c o r d

, w e w i l l n o t

r e c o u n t a l l o f t h e d e t a i l s h e r e

. T o s u m m a r i z e

, B a q u e r o ’ s c o m p l a i n t r e l a t e s t o s t a t e c o u r t

r u l i n g s i n F l o r i d a a n d N e w J e r s e y c o n c e r n i n g h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s

. J u d g e A r t h u r

M

. B i r k e n p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t c a s e i n B r o w a r d C o u n t y

, F l o r i d a

. I n 2 0 1 2

,

J u d g e B i r k e n f o u n d t h a t B a q u e r o w a s $ 6

, 8 9 0 i n a r r e a r s a n d o r d e r e d a $ 2 6 6 p e r m o n t h

p a y m e n t g o i n g f o r w a r d

. M o r e r e c e n t l y

, B a q u e r o h a s b e e n l i t i g a t i n g t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f

h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n i n t h e N e w J e r s e y s t a t e c o u r t s

. I n 2 0 1 8

, N e w J e r s e y

C h a n c e r y C o u r t J u d g e T h o m a s K

. I s e n h o u r i s s u e d a n o r d e r s t a t i n g t h a t B a q u e r o w a s

$ 2 2

, 1 3 2

. 3 9 i n a r r e a r s

. J u d g e I s e n h o u r a l s o d e n i e d B a q u e r o ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n t o d i s m i s s

enforcement o f h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s

.

B a q u e r o t h e n f i l e d h i s f e d e r a l c o m p l a i n t

, a t t a c h i n g n u m e r o u s s t a t e c o u r t

d o c u m e n t s a s e x h i b i t s

, a n d in v o k i n g t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n

. H e a l l e g e d t h a t h e

h a s b e e n d e p r i v e d o f h i s p r o p e r t y t o t h e p o i n t o f h o m e l e s s n e s s

. A s r e l i e f

, h e s o u g h t

d i s m i s s a l o f h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t c a s e s

, r e f u n d o f h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s

, $ 1 0

, 0 0 0 i n

d a m a g e s f r o m J u d g e I s e n h o u r

, a n a d d i t i o n a l $ 1 0

, 0 0 0 f r o m “ t h e C o u n t y

, ” a n d a s h a r e o f

f

e d e r a l i n c e n t i v e f u n d s

. 1 H e n a m e d a s d e f e n d a n t s J u d g e B i r k e n

, t h e F l o r i d a D e p a r t m e n t

o f R e v e n u e

, a n d N e w J e r s e y s t a t e d e f e n d a n t s J u d g e I s e n h o u r

, J u d g e L i n d a M a l l o z z i

,

1 It appears from B a q uero ’ s brief that h is demand relates t o state funding originating from

Federal C hild Suppor t Enforcement Program statutes

.3 S e n i o r P r o b a t i o n O f f

i c e r C h r i s t i n e T a r d i f

, a n d C h i l d S u p p o r t H e a r i n g O f f

i c e r K o n s t a n t i n

F e l d m a n

. B a q u e r o a l s o n a m e d a s a d e f e n d a n t J e n n i f e r M e n d o z a

, t h e m o t h e r o f

B a q u e r o ’ s c h i l d

. J u d g e B i r k e n

, t h e F l o r i d a D e p a r t m e n t o f R e v e n u e

, a n d t h e N e w J e r s e y

s t a t e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t

.

B y o p i n i o n a n d o r d e r e n t e r e d A u g u s t 6

, 2 0 1 9

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a n a l y z e d t h e

c o m p l a i n t a s a c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n u n d e r 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 a n d g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’

m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s o n t h e b a s i s o f E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t i m m u n i t y

, j u d i c i a l i m m u n i t y

,

q u a s i

- j u d i c i a l i m m u n i t y

, a n d F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e

a c l a i m

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l l o w e d B a q u e r o 3 0 d a y s t o f i l e a m o t i o n t o a m e n d h i s

c o m p l a i n t

. O n O c t o b e r 9

, 2 0 1 9

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t i n i t s e n t i r e t y

w i t h p r e j u d i c e

, n o t i n g t h a t B a q u e r o d i d n o t f i l e a m o t i o n t o a m e n d

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t d i s m i s s a l w a s w a r r a n t e d r e g a r d i n g d e f e n d a n t M e n d o z a

. 2 B a q u e r o

f

i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

.

W e have appellate jurisd iction pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1291

. We exercise pl enar y

review over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Nami v. Fauver , 82 F.3d 63 , 65 (3d

Cir. 1 996 ) . “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contai n sufficient factual

matter, accepted a s true, to ‘sta te a claim to relief that is plausibl e on its face.’” Ashcroft

v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544,

570 (2007) ).

W e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s p o s i t i o n o f B a q u e r o ’ s c o m p l a i n t

. N e i t h e r

t h e F l o r i d a D e p a r t m e n t o f R e v e n u e a s a s t a t e a g e n c y

, n o r d e f e n d a n t s B i r k e n

, F e l d m a n

,4 M a l l o z z i

, a n d I s e n h o u r a s s t a t e o f f

i c i a l s i n t h e i r o f f

i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s

, a r e “ p e r s o n s ” c a p a b l e

o f b e i n g s u e d f o r c i v i l r i g h t s v i o l a t i o n s u n d e r § 1 9 8 3

. See Will v. Mich. D ep’t of St ate

Police , 491 U.S. 58, 70

- 71 (1989) ( h o l d i n g t h a t w h i l e s t a t e o f f

i c i a l s l i t e r a l l y a r e p e r s o n s

,

“ n e i t h e r a S t a t e n o r i t s o f f

i c i a l s a c t i n g i n t h e i r o f f

i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s a r e ‘ p e r s o n s ’ u n d e r

§ 1 9 8 3 ” )

. T h e Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damage s a gainst t h e F l o r i d a

D e p a r t m e n t o f R e v e n u e a n d a g a i n s t t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s i n their official capacities

.

See Melo v. Hafe r , 912 F.2d 628, 635 (3d Cir. 1990)

.

C o n c e r n i n g J u d g e s B i r k e n

, M a l l o z z i

, a n d I s e n h o u r a s d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e i r p e r s o n a l

c a p a c i t i e s

, i t is well

- settled that a judge is a b s o l u t e l y imm un e from suit for monetary

damages arising from judicial acts , except f or those “taken in the complete absence of all

jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S 9, 11

– 12 (1991)

. B a q u e r o ’ s c o m p l a i n t c o n c e r n s

t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e c o u r t j u d g e s w h i l e e n g a g e d i n q u i n t e s s e n t i a l l y j u r i d i c a l a c t i v i t i e s

,

s u c h a s p r e s i d i n g o v e r c h i l d s u p p o r t p r o c e e d i n g s a n d i s s u i n g r u l i n g s a n d o r d e r s

.

A l t h o u g h B a q u e r o d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h e j u d g e s ’ d e c i s i o n s

, t h e c o n d u c t a t i s s u e o c c u r r e d

w i t h i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r o l e s a s j u d g e s

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t B a q u e r o s o u g h t i n j u n c t i v e

r e l i e f a g a i n s t t h e j u d i c i a l d e f e n d a n t s

, s u c h r e l i e f i s b a r r e d b y § 1 9 8 3 i t s e l f

, w h e r e B a q u e r o

h a s m a d e n o a l l e g a t i o n t h a t a d e c l a r a t o r y d e c r e e w a s v i o l a t e d o r t h a t d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f i s

u n a v a i l a b l e

. See 42 U.S .C. § 1983 ; Azubuko v. Royal , 443 F .3d 302, 303

- 04 (3d Cir.

2006) (per cur iam)

. M o r e o v e r

, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t

d e f e n d a n t s T a r d i f a n d F e l d m a n a r e e n t i t l e d t o q u a s i

- j u d i c i a l i m m u n i t y f o r t h e i r r o l e s i n

2 Mendoza did no t file an appearance in the proceedings.5 i m p l e m e n t i n g a n d e n f o r c i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r s

. See

, e

. g

. , Gallas v. Supreme Court of

P ennsylvania , 211 F.3d 760, 772

- 73 (3d Cir. 2000) ( c i t i n g c a s e s )

.

W e a l s o a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s a s s e s s m e n t t h a t B a q u e r o ’ s c o m p l a i n t w a s

i n s u f f

i c i e n t t o s t a t e a c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n

. “ To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must

demonstrate the defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived him o r her of a right

secured by the Consti tuti on or the laws of the United States.” Kaucher v. County of

Bucks , 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006 )

. B a q u e r o ’ s c o m p l a i n t l i s t e d t h e n a m e s o f t h e

d e f e n d a n t s b u t d i d n o t p l e a d a n y f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t

i n a n u n l a w f u l d e p r i v a t i o n o f B a q u e r o ’ s r i g h t s

. S e e E v a n c h o v

. F i s h e r

, 4 2 3 F

. 3 d 3 4 7

,

3 5 3 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a c i v i l r i g h t s c o m p l a i n t m u s t a l l e g e f a c t s id e n t i f y i n g

t h e “ c o n d u c t

, t i m e

, p l a c e

, a n d p e r s o n s r e s p o n s i b l e ” ) ; Rod e v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d

1195, 120 7 (3 d Cir. 1988) (“ A defendant in a civil rights a ction must have personal

involvement in the alleged wrongs.”). 3 A s f o r d e f e n d a n t M e n d o z a

, a s i d e f r o m

i d e n t i f y i n g h e r a s h a v i n g b e e n i n v o l v e d i n t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t p r o c e e d i n g s a s t h e c h i l d ’ s

m o t h e r

, t h e c o m p l a i n t s i m i l a r l y c o n t a i n e d n o f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t h e r

. 4

3 B a q u e r o a l l e g e d t h a t J u d g e B i r k e n d i d n o t a l l o w h i m t o s p e a k a n d b e h e a r d b e f o r e

d e p r i v i n g h i m o f h i s p r o p e r t y

, but a s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d

, t h e 2 0 1 2 c h i l d s u p p o r t

j u d g m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t B a q u e r o f iled a n ans wer in th o s e proceedings and a p p e a r e d a t t h e

f

i n a l h e a r i n g b y t e l e p h o n e

. ( See District Court Op. at 9.) In any even t , a s stated earlier,

Judge Birken is immune from suit concerning his ju dic ial actions.

4 Baquero ’ s complaint contain s no su ggestion that Mendoza w as su ed in any capacity

other than as a private citizen . Thus, hi s § 1983 suit against her also would fail beca use

he has not alleged th at Mendoza is a state offi cial or that she exercised state pow er

. Her

participation as a p arty in the state c ourt child support proceed in gs, by itself, does not

convert her involvement into action th at can be “ fai rly attributed to the state it self

. ”

Groman v. Twp. of Ma nalapan , 4 7 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995)

.6 F i n a l l y

, Baquero c a n n o t r a i s e n e w c l a i m s o r a r g u m e n t s i n t h i s a p p e a l

. F o r

i n s t a n c e

, h e seek s shared cu stody of the child a n d r e q u e s t s $797,777,994 in punitive

damage s

. H e a l s o m a k e s s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e s t o a n u m b e r o f s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s a n d

r e g u l a t i o n s

, i n c l u d i n g t h e Federal Child Supp ort Enforcement Program statutes , the New

Jersey Constitution a n d C r i m i n a l C o d e

, t h e N o r t h D a k o t a C o n s t i t u t i o n

, a n d t h e

I m m i g r a t i o n a n d N a t i o n a l i t y A c t

. We g e n e r a l l y d o not review arguments r aised for th e

first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstan ces, s e e Tri

- M Group, LLC v. Sharp

,

638 F.3d 406, 416 (3d Cir. 2011) , and none are present here. I n a n y e v e n t

, w e have

considered B a q u e r o ’s argu ments a n d con clude that they are without merit on th e i s s u e

b e f o r e u s

, n a m e l y

, whether the District Court a p p r o p r i a t e l y dismiss e d B a q u e r o ’ s c a s e

,

a f

t e r p r o v i d i n g a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o a m e n d h i s c o m p l a i n t

.

W e will affirm the District Court ’s order.