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 5-31-2007 

# Robinson v . Gra ves 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 . 06-5037

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 " Ro b in s on v

. Gr a ve s " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1051. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1051DL D- 2 3 7 NOT 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- 5037

________________ CH AR L E S M . RO BI NS ON

v. HO N. HEN LEY T. GR AV ES

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

F o r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00504) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G r egoryM . Sl eet

________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) M ay17, 2007 B E FO R E : B A R R Y , A M B R O and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed M ay31, 2007)

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C UR I AM C har l es R obi ns on appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai nt a s f riv o lo u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ). B e c a u se w e d e ter m in e th a t th e a p p e a l is lack ing in arg u ab le l eg al m erit , w e w il l dism iss i t un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).2

A ccor di ng t o R obi ns on’ s compl ai nt , i n 2001 the H onor abl e H enryG r aves , the d ef en d an t i n this suit , p reside d o v er c ri m inal p roc ee d ing s inv o lving R o b inso n . In S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 3 , R o b in so n th re a ten e d to k ill Ju d g e G ra v e s a s w e ll as h is f a m ily . D e sp ite the thr eat , J udge G r aves cont i nued t o pr es i de overthe ca s e and r enderdeci s i ons aff ect i ng R obi ns on’ s s ent ence , r ej ect i ng a mot i on t o corr ecthi s s ent ence . R obi ns on appea l ed the den i al of h i s m oti on argui ng that J ud ge G raves w as bi ased an d thathe w as act i ng as a j udge i n a ca s e thathe had a per s onal i nt er es ti n and s houl d, ther efor e, be r ecus ed. T he D elaw are S u p rem e C o u rtfo u n d n o erro r. R obi ns on then fi l ed a pr o s e ac t i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n the U ni t ed St at es D is tr ic t C o u rt f

o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

D e la w a re s e e k in g to re m o v e J u d g e G ra v e s f ro m h is c a s e . T he D i stri ctC ou rt , aft er gr anti ng R ob i nson ’s m oti on t o p roceed in form a pau peri s, d is m is s e d h is c o m p la in t u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ) b a s e d o n ju d ic ia l im m u n ity. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. H avi ng gr ant ed R o b in so n lea v e to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l, w e n o w d e ter m in e w h e th e r h is a p p e a l sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d p u rsu a n t to § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ). A n a p p e a l m u st b e d ism iss e d if it has no ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw orfac t . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ; N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). I n 1996, C ongr es s amended 42 U . S. C . § 1983 t o pr ovi de that“i nj unct i ve r el i ef s hal l notbe gr ant ed” i n an ac t i on br oughtagai ns t“a j udi ci al offi cerforan ac torom i s s i on t aken i n s uch off

i cer ’ s j udi ci al capa ci ty. . . unl es s a dec l ar at orydecr ee w as vi ol at ed ordecl ar at oryr el i ef w as unavai l abl e. ” B ol i n v. St ory , 225 F. 3d 1234, 1242 ( 11th C i r . 2000)

R obi ns on compl ai ns of ac t i ons t aken byJ udge G r aves i n hi s offi ci al capa ci ty , no d e c lar a to ryd e c re e w a s in v o lv e d , an d h e c a n n o t d e m o n stra te th a t d e c lar a to ryre lief is u n av ail ab le. B ec au se h is ap p ea l l ac k s m erit , w e w il l dism iss i t un d er § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).

3