2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-5-2012 

# S t eve n F le min g v

. C a p e M a y C oun t y
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-1260

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S t e v e n Fle min g v

. C a pe M a y C oun t y " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1177. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/1177CLD
- 146 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 1260

___________ STEPHEN P. FLEMING , Appellant

v. CAPE MAY COUNTY, FAMILY PART, (D.Y.F.S.); MS. FLORINE ALEXANDER, CMCH; SUPERIOR CO URT OF NEW JERSEY; COUNTIES OF ATLANTIC CITY AND CAPE MAY; JUDGE CAROL E. HIGBEE, Atlantic City Courthouse; J UDGE DARYL TODD, Cape May Courthouse; CAPT. LIN FRANE, D.A. ’ s Office, CMCH; DONALD A. WILKINGSON, ESQ.

____________________________________ On A ppeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 1:11

- cv - 03894 ) District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Cir cuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 22, 2012 Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : April 5, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Stephen Fleming, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeal s District Court2 orders dismissing his complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , exercising plenary review over the dismissal of the complaint

. See Wilson v. Rackmill , 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 19 89) ; Connors v. Tremont Mining Co. , 835 F.2d 1028, 1029 (3d Cir. 1987)

. The denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Ross v. Meagan

Having examined the record, we are in f ull accord with the District Court and, finding no substantial question presented by this appeal, will summarily affirm its judgment. , 638 F.2d 646, 648 (3d Cir. 1981) (per curiam).

Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d Cir. 2011) ; see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6 . Fleming’s complaint , whi ch is confusing and disjointed, does not specify the nature of the relief he seeks, and is flawed in several respects. To the extent that he directly attacks a state

- court judgment, his claims are barred by the Rooker

Feldman 1 doctrine. See Lampe v. Lamp e , 665 F.3d 506, 518 n.15 (3d Cir. 2011)

. Many of the named defendants are probably entitled to varying forms of immunity. See, e.g. , Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976) (delineating the contours of prosecutorial immunity); Capogrosso v. Sup. Ct . of N.J. , 588 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (explaining judicial immunity); Pa. Fed’n of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Hess

1 D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923). , 297 F.3d 310, 323 (3d Cir. 2002) (discussing Eleventh Amendment immunity in the context of “state agencies and department s and officials when the state is the real part y in3 interest”). 2 The complaint, even read with the degree of liberality afforded to pro

- se pleadings, see Boag v. MacDougall , 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), does not appear to state a claim “ arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States .” 28 U.S.C. § 1331

. Federal criminal statutes do not, by their mere presence , grant a private right of action for use in civil suits

. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe , 536 U.S. 273, 283

– 84 (2002)

. Nor does the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A , create such a right of action. S ee Thompson v. Thompson , 484 U.S. 174, 187 (1988) . To the extent that Fleming’s complaint can be read to imply a suit in diversity against defendant Donal d Wilkinson , it still fails to “state a plausible claim for relief” due to its conclusory approach and lack of well

- pleaded facts

. Burtch v. Milberg Factors,
Inc. , 662 F.3d 212, 225 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Ordinarily, a District Court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without granting leave to am end. , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) ). In sum, these many defects suggest that the District Court correctly dismissed the complaint pursuant to its 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) screening responsibilities.

See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 110

– 111 (3d Cir. 2002) . Here, however, amendment would be futile ; the defects discussed above could not be corrected by amending the complaint . Also, while it appears that Fleming may have intended to file a motion for appointment of counsel, see

2 While “ immunity, whether qualified or absolute, is an affirmative def ense which must be affirmatively pleaded, ” Kennedy v. City of Cleveland , 797 F.2d 297, 300 (6th Cir. 1986), it may be raised sua sponte when apparent from the face of the complaint. Ray v. Kertes , 285 F.3d 287, 296 (3d Cir. 2002). Letter, ECF No. 2, his4 complaint lacked merit and, as such, a motion for appointment of counsel would have been properly denied. See Alston v. Parker , 363 F.3d 229, 231 (3d Cir. 2004) . Finally, we detect n o abuse of discretion in the denial of Fleming’s motion for reconsideration, as he pointed to no “ manifest errors of law or fact ” in the District Court’s original order and did not otherwise “ present newly discovered evidence .” Blystone v. Horn

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm. , 664 F.3d 397,
415

– 16 (3d Cir. 2011)

.