2009 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
11-27-2009 

# Ele anor C ap ogro s so v

. Ad vi sory C ommittee on Judic i al
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o .;08-3816

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_2009

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 2009 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

" Ele anor C apo gr os s o v

. Advi s ory C ommitt e e on Jud ic i al " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 166. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/166P 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. 08- 3816

___________ E L E ANOR CA P OGR OS S O, A ppel l ant

v . THE SUPREM E CO UR T OF THE STATE O F NEW J E RS E Y; S T UAR T RA BN E R ( I NT E NDE D T O B E T HE CH I EF J UD GE O F THE SUPREM E CO UR T OF N EW J E RS E Y) ; ADVI S OR Y C OM M I T T E E ON J UDI CI AL CONDU CT; CANDA CE MO ODY ( I NTE NDED TO BE THE DI S CI P LI NARY COU NSE L F OR THE ADVI S ORY CO M M I T T E E ON J UDI CI AL CO NDUC T ) ; J OHN TON ELLI ( I NTEN DED TO B E THE D I RECTO R O F THE A D V IS O R Y C O M M IT T E E O N JU D IC IA L C O N D U C T ); H O N
. M A U RI CE J
. G A LLI PO LI , J
. S. C. ; H O N
. PETE R F. B A R IS O , J .S .C .; H O N . B A R B A R A A . C U R R A N , J .S .C .;

HON
. M AHLON L. F AST , J
. S
. C.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from 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 ey2 ( D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 05579) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le F aith S
. H o ch b erg

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember1, 2009 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S a n d A L D IS E R T , C irc u it

J udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember27, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e appe l l antE l eanorC apogr os s o, an att orney , fi l ed a ci vi l r i ght s act i on agai ns t , i nt er al i a, four N ew J er s eySuper i or C our tj udges , the N ew J er s ey A dvi s ory C om m i t t ee on J udi ci al C onduct ( “A C J C ”) , A C J C D i s ci pl i nary C ounsel C andac e M oody , and A C J C D i r ect orJ ohn T onel l i

. H ercl ai m s s t emm ed fr om al l eged j udi ci al m i s conduc t in hers t at e courtcas es and al l eged mi sconducton the partof the A C J C , w hi ch i s char ged u n d e r th e Ne w J e r s e y Ru l e s o f Co u r twi th i n v e s t i g a t i n g c l a i ms of j udi ci al m i s conduct

. C apogr os s o appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ct C our tdeci s i on di s m i s s i ng her42 U
. S. C
. § 1983 compl ai ntunder Feder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 12(b) ( 6)

. W e have j ur i s di ct i on3 p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1
. I S ince ar ou nd 20 01 , C apo grosso has been i nv olved as a l i t i ganti n var iou s s t at e courtl aw s ui t s r el at ed t o t enanc y dis pu t es. D uri ng the co urse o f t hese cases, C apo grosso appea r ed bef

or e Super i or C our tJ udges G al l i pol i , Fas t , C urr an, and B ar i s o. A ts om e poi nti n eac h cas e, the j udges’ j udi ci al conduct appea r ed t o C apogr os s o as cr i m i nal orvi ol at i ve of he r r i ght s as a l i t i gant
. Fol l ow i ng eac h i nci dent , s he fi l ed a compl ai ntw i th the A C J C
. T he A C J C di s m i s sed all fi ve com plai nts
. In N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , C a p o g ro ss o f iled a 2 1 -c laim compl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our t
. Fi ve of thos e cl ai m s al l eged thatthe Super i orC our tj udges ’ conduct on the benc h amount ed to c rim in a l b e h a v io r. C a p o g ro ss o a lso ra ise d c laim s, c iti n g b o th the Four t eenth A m endme n t an d 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983, thatthe A C JC viol at ed h er r i gh t s by dis m i ssi ng her com plai nts against the judge s. B ased o n these al l eged viol at i on s, C apo grosso rais ed fi ve cl ai m s forcos t s and att orney ’ s fee s . Fur ther, C apogr os s o cl ai m ed tha tN ew J er s eyC our tR ul e 2: 15, w hi ch es t abl i s hed the A C J C , vi ol at es the N ew J er s eyC ons t i tut i on. C apogr os s o al s o al l eged that , dur i ng the pendencyof her fede r al cas e, anotheri nci denti nvolving Judge Fas toccurr ed. W hi l e i n Super i orC our t , C apogr os s o w as w ai t i ng w i th her a tto rn e yo u tsid e o f Ju d g e F a st’s c h a m b e rs. Ju d g e F a st e x ited h is chamber s , s aw C apogrosso w i th heratt orney , and ent er ed the chamber s of Super i orC ourt J udge I gl es i as , befor e w homI n hernot i ce of appea l , C apogr os s o s t at es thats he 1 appea l s al l unfavor abl e or der s r el at ed t o the di s m i s s al of her c o mp l a i n t
. Be c a u s e Ca p o g r o s s o i s a n e x p e r i e n c e d l i t i g a n t , we l i m i tourcons i der at i on t o the ar gum ent s r ai s ed i n her appel l at e br i ef. N everthel es s , w e r emai n m i ndful of our o b lig a tio n to c o n s tru e a p ro s e litig a n t’ s p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. S ee H aine s v . K ern er, 40 4 U
. S
. 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ). 4 C apogr os s o w as aboutt o appear as a l i t i gant
. W hen s he appea r ed bef

or e J udge I gl es i as , he deni ed a m ot i on heratt orney had fi l ed, al though her law y ercomm ent ed t o herthats uch m ot i ons w er e r out i nel ygr anted

. C apogr os s o amended her fede r al compl ai ntt o al l ege thatJ udge Igl es i as ’ s urpr i s i ng rul i ng, v iew ed in ligh t of

h is i n teracti o n w ith Ju d g e F ast b ef o re C apogr os s o’ s courtappea r ance, gave r i s e t o an i nfer ence of im p ro p e r i n f

lu e n c e , in v io la tio n o f

h e r d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts
. T h e D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llee s file d a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o tio n to di s m i s s , w hi ch the D i s tr i ct C our t gr ant ed. C apogr os s o’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on w as deni ed and s he fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of a p p e a l. 1 II W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our tor der gr ant i ng the R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. Se e M cG o vern v. P h ilad e lp h ia, 5 5 4 F .3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). “ W e a c c e p t all w e ll-p lea d e d a lleg a tio n s in th e c o m p la in t as tru e a n d d ra w a ll r eas onabl e i nfer en ces i n [C apogr os s o’ s ] favor

. ” I d. “The D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm enti s pr oper onl y i f, acc ept i ng al l fac tual5 al l egati on s as true and con strui ng the com plai nt i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e to [ C apogr os s o] , w e det erm i ne that[s he] i s not e n title d to re lie f

u n d e r a n y re a s o n a b le re a d in g o f th e c o m p la in t.” Id

. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed C apogr os s o’ s cr i m i nal cl ai m s agai ns tt he Super i orC our tj udges under the d octr i ne of ju d icia l im m u n ity . “A ju d icia l o f f ice r in th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

h is dut i es has abs ol ut e i m m uni ty fr om s ui t and w i l l notbe l i abl e for h is j u d ici al ac ts. ” A zu b u k o v . R o y al, 4 4 3 F
. 3 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 3 (3d C ir

. 2006)

. “A j udge w i l l notbe depr i ved of i m m uni tybeca us e the a c tio n h e to o k w a s in e rro r, w a s d o n e m a licio u sly , o r w a s in e x c e ss o f h is a u th o rity ; ra th e r, h e w ill b e su b jec t to liab ili tyo n ly w hen he ha s act ed ‘ i n the cl ear abs ence of al l j ur i s di ct i on. ’ ” I d. (qu o ti n g S tum p v . S p a rk m an , 4 3 5 U
. S
. 3 4 9 , 3 5 6 -57 (19 7 8 )). H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tr eas on ed t hatal l of the al l egat i ons a g a in st J u d g e s G a lli p o li, B a riso , F a s t, a n d C u rra n re late d to act i ons theyt ook as j udges

. W e agr ee a nd not e t hatdes pi t e her uns uppor t ed as s ert i ons t o the contr ary , C apogr os s o has nots et f o rth a n yf

a c ts th a t w o u ld sh o w th a t an yo f th e ju d g e s a c ted in the a b sen ce o f ju ri sd ict ion

. L ikew ise, the D istri ct C o u rt corr ect l ynot ed thatC apogr os s o’ s cr i m i nal cl ai m s fai l t o s t at e a caus e of a ct i on under§ 1983, as i ndi vi dual ci t i zens do nothave a con st i tuti on al ri gh tt o the p ro secut i on of all eged cri m i nals

. S ee S att ler v. Joh n so n , 8 5 7 F
. 2 d 2 2 4 , 2 2 7 (4th C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ). W e al s o a g r e e th a tCa p o g r o s s o f a i l e d t o s t a t e a § 1 9 83 cl ai m for J udge Fas t ’ s al l eged i m pr operi nfl uence . T he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e r equi r e thata pl ai nt i ff a s s ertm or e than m er e l abel s and conc l us i ons . See Fed. R
. C i v. P. 8; Phi l l i ps v. C o u n tyo f A ll eg h e n y , 5 1 5 F
. 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 1 -32 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ).6 “[A ] compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci ent fac tual m att er , acc ept ed as true , to ‘stat e a claim to r eli ef that is plau sible o n it s fa ce . ’ A cl ai m has fac i al pl aus i bi l i tyw hen the pl ai nt i ff plea ds fac tual cont entt hatal l ow s t he courtt o draw the r eas onabl e i nfer ence th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is lia b le f

o r t h e m is c o n d u c t a ll e g e d .” A s hcr oftv. I qbal , __ U
. S. __, 129 S. C t
. 1937, 1949 ( 2009) ( quot i ng B el l A t l

. C orp. v . T w o m b l y , 550 U
. S. 544, 556, 570 ( 2007) )

. T hus , a “j udi ci al cons pi r acy ” cl ai m m u s ti ncl ude at l eas ta di s cerni bl e fa ctual bas i s t o s ur vi ve a R u le 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s al

. See C r abtr ee v. M uchmore , 904 F. 2d 1475, 1480- 81 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). T o w it: T he C our ti s m ind fu l thatdi r ectevi dence of a cons pi r acyi s r ar el yavai l abl e and thatthe exi s t ence of a cons pi r acy m us tus ual l ybe i nferr ed f rom the cir cum st ances. T he C ou rti s equally m i n d fu l thatcaut i on i s advi s ed i n anypr e- tr i al d isp o sitio n o f

c o n s p ir a c y a ll e g a ti o n s in c iv il r ig h ts act i on s. H ow ever , the rul e i s cl earthatal lega ti ons of a c o n s p ira c ym u st p ro v id e so m e f a c tu a l b a sis to s uppor tthe exi s t ence of the el ement s of a c o n s p ir a c y : a g re e m e n t a n d c o n c e rt e d a c tio n . A cons pi r acycannotbe found f r om al l egat i ons of j udi ci al err or , ex par t e comm uni cat i ons ( the m an n er o f o cc u rren ce an d su b stan ce o f w h ich a re n o t alle g e d ) o r a d v e rse ru lin g s a b se n t sp e c if ic fac t s demonstr at i ng an agr eementt o com m itthe al l eged i m proper act i on s.N ot abl y , C apogr os s o s ued D i r ect orT onel l i and 2 D i sci pli naryC ou nsel M oo dyi n thei r offi ci al capac i t i es. 7 Id . at 14 8 1 (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H e re , C a p o g ro ss o a lleg e d o n lyth a t Ju d g e F a st in ter a c ted w ith Ju d g e Ig les ias a f

ter p re su m a b ly h e a rin g h e r d isc u ss h e r c a se in a hal l w ay , and that Judge I gl es i as ’ s ubs equentadver s e rul i ng gi ves r i s e t o an i nfer ence of cons pi r at or i al conduct

. T he D i s tr i ct C our tr eas oned that , w i thoutm or e, C apogr os s o fai l ed t o s t at e a cogni zabl e cl ai m under§ 1983. W e agr ee. III W e tu r n n e x tt o Ca p o g r o s s o ’ s c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e ACJ C, D i s c ip lin a ry C o u n s e l M o o d y, a n d D i r e c t o rT o n e l l i ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, “A C J C ”)

. A tthe out s et , w e not e ouragr eementw i th the

2 D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s anal y sis c oncerni ng the over l ap betw een C apogr os s o’ s § 1983 claims aga i ns tA C J C and heri dent i cal F ou rt eenth A m en d m e n tcl ai m s. Inasm uch as § 19 83 affo rds a r emedy for i nfr i ngement of one’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , i dent i cal c laim s ra ise d u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t ar e re d u n d a n t, r ender i ng the out come of t he § 1983 cl ai m s di s posit ive o f the i ndepende ntcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s . See R ogi n v. B ens al em T w p ., 6 1 6 F .2 d 6 8 0 , 6 8 6 -8 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). I n di s m i s sing C ap o g ross o ’s claim s ag ains t th e A C JC , the D istri ct C o u rtrea so n ed that the e n ti tyan d it s em p loy ee s are e n tit led to E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity . T h e E lev e n th A m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ot ect s an uncons ent i ng s t at e ors t at e age ncyfr om a s ui tbr oughti n fede r al8 c o u r t , r e ga r d l e s s o f

th e r e l i e f

s o u g h t
. S e e M CI Te l e c o mm. C o rp. v. B ell A tl

. P en n sy lvan ia, 2 7 1 F
. 3 d 4 9 1 , 5 0 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). T h is im m u n ityd o e s n o t ex ten d to in d iv id u a l sta te offi cer s s ued i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es forpr os pect i ve i nj unct i ve ordecl ar at oryr el i ef t o r emedyongoi ng vi ol at i ons of fede r al l aw . Se e i d. I nas m uch as C apogr os s o s oughtr el i ef agai ns tthe A C J C and i ts empl oy ees onl yi n thei roffi ci al capac i t i es, dis m i ssal of h er cl ai m s w as approp ri at e. S ee H ir sh v . Ju sti ce s o f S u p . C t. o f C ali fo rnia, 6 7 F
. 3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 5 (9th C ir

. 1995)

. T o the ext ent that C apogr os s o’ s pr o s e compl ai ntcan be rea d to inclu d e claim s ag ains t D ir ec tor T o n ell i and D isci p li n ary C ounsel M oodyi n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es , theyar e ent i t l ed t o quas i

- j udi ci al i m m uni ty an d thus nots ubj ectt o s ui tfor i nj unct i ve r el i ef. See i d. T hus w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’ s d ism iss a l o f

C a p o g ro ss o ’s § 1 9 8 3 a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t cla im s. A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d ism iss e d C a p o g ro ss o ’s f iv e c laim s f

o r a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s a n d c o sts based o n the al l eged con st i tuti on al viol at i on s. IV L as t l y , w e addr es s C apogr os s o’ s cl ai m thatN ew J er s ey C o u rtR u le 2:1 5 v iolates th e N ew Jerse yC o n sti tuti o n . In dism i s s i ng t hatcl ai m , the D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned that C apogr os s o fai l ed t o s t at e a cl ai m cogni zabl e under§ 1983, as that p rovi s i on onl ypr ovi des r emedi es fora depr i vat i on of a per s on’ s “r i ght s , p ri vi l eges ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed bythe C ons t i tuti o n o r l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983; s ee K os tv. K ozaki ew i cz, 1 F. 3d 176, 1 8 4 ( 3d C i r . 1993)Ina sm u ch as C ap o g ross o inv o k ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 3 s u p p l e me n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e ra r e l a t e d s t a t e l a w c l a i m, we u n d e rs ta n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to h a v e d e c lin e d to e x e rc is e it. S ee 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 6 7 (c). 9 (qu o ti n g P arrattv . T ay lo r, 4 5 1 U
. S
. 5 2 7 , 5 3 5 (19 8 1 )). W e 3 agr ee. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt f u rth e r re a so n e d th a t ev e n if C a p o g r o s s o h a d r a i s e d a c l a i m u n d e r th e Uni t e d St at es C o n sti tuti o n , the c lai m w o u ld sti ll b e d ism issed b ec au se h er b are a lleg a tio n th a t th e A C JC ’s c o n f id e n tia l p ro c e d u re s f

a c ili tate i m pr oper deci s i ons fai l ed for the s ame r eas on as her “judi ci al co n sp ir ac y ” claim

. T h at is, h er m ere labe li n g o f th e A C JC ’s p r a c tic e s a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l, w ith o u t g re a ter f a c tu a l su p p o rt, w as in s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta cl ai m forr el i ef unde r§ 1983. A g a in , w e a g re e . A c c o rd in g ly , an d f

o r th e f o re g o in g r e a s o n s, w e w ill aff irm the judgm ent of the D i stri ctC ou rt
. T he A pp el l ees’ m ot i on t o fi l e a s uppl ement al appendi x and to su p p l ementthe r ecor d i s deni ed. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forl eave to fil e a s uppl ement al appendi x i s deni ed. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forl eave to f il e a repl ybri ef ou tof ti m e and t o fil e an o verl eng th rep ly br i ef i s gr ant ed. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on fora pr ot ect i ve or derand foran expe di t ed dec i s i on i s deni ed. See Fed. R
. A pp. P. 8( a) ; 3d C i r . L
. A
. R
. 4. 1. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on foror al ar gum enti s deni ed.