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 5-21-2009 

# W all a ce v . F ed Empl U S D i s t C t 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 . 08-2548

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 author i 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 " W all a c e v . F e d E mp l U S Di s t C t " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1339. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1339NOT 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. 08- 2548

___________ J OHN W ALL ACE; M ARGARET WALLACE

v. F EDE RAL E M P LOYEE S OF US DI S TRI CT C OURT, EDP A; CHARLE S W EI NER; J UDG E R. BARCL AY SURRI CK, J UDG E; S TAT E E M P LOYEE OF DI S TRI CT JU S T IC E ' S O F F IC E ; M IC H E L E A . V A R R IC C H IO , D IS T R IC T JU S T IC E ; G R A P H IC M ANAGE M E NT AS S OC I AT E S ( GM A) , AND T HE M ANAGE M E NT AND OWNE RS HI P AT AL L L E VE L S WHET HE R N AT I ONAL AND/ OR I NTER NA TI ON AL; RA ND Y SEI DEL, FORM ER CEO ; STEVE GA RZA , FORM ER DI RE CT OR OF OP E RA T I ONS , UNKNO WN OT HE RS ; S T E VE NS & L E E , AND T HE M ANA GEM ENT AND OW NERS HI P AT ALL LE VEL S ; R. M I CHAEL C ARR, A T T O R N E Y ; JA D O A S S O C IA T E S , A N D T H E M A N A G E M E N T A N D O W N E R S H IP AT A LL LEVELS; J ULI AN ASEN CI O, OW NER ; DO RCA ASEN CI O, POSS I BLE

W I FE, SURN AM E M AY DI FF ER, POSS I BLE CO - OW NER J ohn W al l ace , A ppel l ant

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 07- cv- 01132) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an* * D istric t Ju d g e o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t of N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 292( b)

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

J anuary6, 20092 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay21, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Jo h n W a llac e a p p e a ls p ro se f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g h is a n d h is wi f e ’ s c o mp l a i n t . F o rt h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. W a llac e ’s c laim s a rise p rin c ip a llyf ro m p rio r ju d icia l p ro c e e d in g s. In 2 0 0 4 , h is w i fe, M ar gar etW al l ace , fi l ed an e m pl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on s ui ti n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns therform erempl oy erG r aphi c M anage m entA s s oci at es ( “G M A ”) and ce r t ai n of i t s empl oy ees . T he ca s e i ni t i al l yw as as s i gned t o D i s t r i ctJ udge W ei ner ( now dece as ed) butw as r eas s i gned t o D i s t r i ctJ udge Sur r i ck af t erJ udge W ei nerr ecus ed hi m s el f on M ar gar etW al l ace ’ s m ot i on. J udge Sur r i ck ul t i m at el ydi s m i s s ed hercompl ai nt as a s anct i on forherr epea t ed r efus al t o compl yw i t h di s coveryand s chedul i ng or der s , and w e a ff irm ed . S ee W all ac e v . G rap h ic M g m t. A sso cs., 1 9 7 F ed . A p p x . 1 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n 2006, w hi l e thatappea l w as pendi ng, J ohn W al l ace fi l ed anotheract i on i n the E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a al l egi ng thatthe def endant s i n hi s w i fe’ s s ui t , ai ded by t hei rat t or ney s , had fi l ed var i ous fr audul entdocument s w i t h t he courtand thatJ udges W ei nerand Sur r i ck had “ acqui es ced” i n t he fr aud. H e al s o al l eged va r i ous i m pr opr i et i esT he D i s t r i ctC our tapt l ychar act er i zed the compl ai ntas “the type of bur dens om e and 1 unnece s s ar i l yand unfa i r l ycumber s om e compl ai ntthati s vi ol at i ve of the Feder al R ul es . ” T he r ambl i ng 210- page c om pl ai nt , m uch of w hi ch i s nots etfor t h i n num ber ed paragraphs, i s r i fe w i t h redun dan ci es and irrel evan tand i m pert i nen tm at t er. Iti ncludes, am on g o t her things, l i st s of G M A ’s cou nsel ’s al l eged “capti ve” st at e and fede ral j ud ges, and i n r efe r ence t o t he pas s i ng of J udge W ei neral l eges thathe “thr ough death has ent er ed a n o th e r j u ri s d ic tio n a n d h a s f o u n d ju s tic e .” C o m p l. a t 1 7 .

3 dur i ng pr ocee di ngs befor e the Penns y l vani a C om m onw eal t h C our t . T he compl ai nt n a m e d a s d e f

e n d a n ts J u d g e s W e in e r a n d S u rric k , the ju d g e s o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Co mmo n we a l t h Co u r t , GM A a n d i t s c o u n s e l . Th e c o mp l a i n tp u rp o r t e d t o s t a t e c l a i ms underB i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gent s of Fed. B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 (1 9 7 1 ), a g a in s t th e f

e d e ra l d e f

e n d a n ts a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a g a in s t th e s ta te d e f e n d a n ts . A m o n g o th e r th in g s, W a llac e a lleg e d th a t G M A a n d its c o u n se l w e re f e d e ra l an d sta te act or s beca us e theyhad perpetr at ed fr aud on s t at e and f eder al cour t s i n w hi ch the j udges t h e r e o f h a d a c q u i e s c e d . T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d Wa l l a c e ’ s c o mp l a i n t , a n d we a f f ir m e d th a t ru lin g a s w e ll. S e e W a lla c e v . F e d e ra l J u d g e s o f U n ite d S ta te s D is t. C t., C .A . N o . 0 7 -1 3 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 W L 7 8 6 7 3 8 (3 d C ir . M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 ). Fi nal l y , w hi l e thatappea l w as pendi ng, the W al l ace s fi l ed the compl ai ntas i s s ue h ere . T h e c o m p lai n t on ce ag ain n am es a s d ef en d an ts th e f

ed era l j u d g es a n d p ri v ate a ctors w ho w er e def

endant s i n W al l ace ’ s 2006 compl ai ntand r epea t s m anyof the al l egat i ons and purpor t ed cl ai m s cont ai ned ther ei n. 1 T he compl ai ntal s o as s er t s cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof a Penns y l vani a s t at e l andl or dt enantpr ocee di ng conduct ed w hi l e W al l ace ’ s 2006 compl ai ntw as s t i l l pendi ng befor e the4

D istri ct C o u rt . A cc o rdin g to the W all ac es, th e p u rpo rt ed fra u d in M arg are t W all ac e’s 2 0 0 4 e m p lo ym e n t su it d e p riv e d h e r o f a ju d g m e n t an d lef

t h e r w ith o u t su f

f icie n t f u n d s to payr entt o herl andl or d, J A D O A s s oci at es ( J ohn W al l ace appar ent l yw as i n pr i s on att he t i m e) . I n A pr i l 2005, J A D O A s s oci at es obt ai ned a j udgm entfr om Penns y l vani a D i s t r i ct J us t i ce M i chel e A . V arr i cchi o forevi ct i on and appr oxi m at el y$2, 000 i n back r ent . T he W al l ace s conce de thatt heyw er e behi nd on t hei rr entand thatJ A D O A s s oci at es w as ent i t l ed t o evi ctt hem, and theycl ai m t o have pa i d t he j udgm enti n ful l . T heycont end, how ever , t hatJ A D O A s s oci at es s ubm i t t ed fr audul entdocument s t o D i s t r i ctJ us t i ce V arr i cchi o over s t at i ng t hei rl i abi l i t yforback r entby“$650 orm or e” a nd thatD i s t r i ct J us t i ce V arr i cchi o m us thave know n of the fr aud bec aus e the W al l ace s i nform ed herof th e a lle g e d ly co rr e c t a m o u n t. On t h e b a s i s o f

t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s , th e Wa l l a c e s n a me d a s d e f e n d a n t s J ADO A sso ciates, i ts ow n ers Ju li an an d D o rca A sen cio (c o ll ec ti v ely , the “ JA D O d ef en d an ts”), D istric t Ju stic e V a rric c h io a n d a n u n n a m e d e m p lo y e e o f h e r o f f ice . Ju st a s W a llac e d id in hi s 2006 s ui tagai ns tG M A , t heyas s erta § 1983 cl ai m agai ns tthe J A D O defe ndant s on t he theoryt hatt heyact ed undercol orof s t at e l aw byvi r tue of D i s t r i ctJ us t i ce V a rric c h io ’s a lleg e d “ a c q u ies c e n c e ” in th e ir f ra u d . T h e W a llac e s c lar if ied th a t th e o n ly cl ai m t heyi nt ended t o as s er tagai ns tthe J A D O defe ndant s w as one under§ 1983. See, e. g. , C om pl . at132 ( “The Pl ai nt i ffs s ue notforevi ct i on, and notforthe corr ectamount of j udgm ent , butfordepr i vat i on of Pr ocedur al and Subs t ant i ve D ue Pr oces s of Law andN evert hel es s , w e not e thatw e agr ee i n al l r es pect s w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s of 2 w h ythe W all ac es’ c lai m s ag ains t th e n o n -JA D O d ef en d an ts fail as a m att er o f law . In par t i cul ar , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yappl i ed the doctr i nes of j udi ci al i m m uni t y , j udi ci al pr i vi l ege, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . W e furt hernot e that , beca us e W al l ace has appea l ed pr o s e, he maynotas s er tcl ai m s on behal f of hi s w i fe. See O s ei - A fr i y i e v. M ed. C o ll . o f P a., 9 3 7 F . 2 d 8 7 6 , 8 8 2 -83 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 5 E q u al P rotec ti o n d u e to th e f rau d u lent am o u n t. ”). Al l d e f e n d a n t s e x c e p tt h e J ADO d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d mo t i o n s t o d i s mi s s . T h e J ADO defe ndant s neverent er ed an a ppear ance , and the W al l ace s m oved fordefa ul tj udgm ent agai ns tt hem (a s w el l as ot herdefe ndant s ) . B yopi ni on and or derent er ed A pr i l 28, 2008, th e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th e W a llac e s’ c laim s a g a in st a ll th e n o n -JA D O d e f e n d a n ts w i t h p rej ud i ce. A s t o the JA D O defe nd ants , the D i stri ctC ou rtfi rs tden i ed the W al l aces’ m ot i on fora def

aul tj udgm entbeca us e i tconcl uded thattheyhad notpr oper l ys erved the compl ai nt , t hen di s m i s s ed thei rcl ai m s w i t houtpr ej udi ce f orfai l ur e t o eff

ects ervi ce w ith in 1 2 0 d ay s o f f

il ing the c o m p lai n t, see F ed . R . C iv. P. 4(m ), an d fa il u re to c o n fo rm w ith R u le 8. T h e D istri ct C o u rtg av e the m leav e to f il e a n am en d ed co m p lai n t “t o asse rt onl yt hei rcl ai m s agai ns tJ A D O A s s oci at es , and t o cur e thei rcurr entcompl ai nt ’ s R ul e 8 defici encies . ” O nlyJohn W al l ace ap peals . II. On a p p e a l , Wa l l a c e wi s e l yr e c o g n i z e s th a ta l l o f h i s c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e n o n - J ADO d e f e n d a n ts a re f

o re c lo se d b yo u r d e c isio n in h is p rio r a p p e a l an d h e ra ise s n o iss u e s a s to t hem. A nys uch pot ent i al i s s ues , t her efor e, ar e w ai ved. I ns t ead, he r ai s es tw o i s s ues 2T he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fora § 1983 cl ai m ar i s i ng i n Penns y l vani a i s tw o y ear s . See 3 K os tv. K ozaki ew i cz, 1 F. 3d 176, 189- 90 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T he J A D O defe ndant s obt ai ned t hei rj udgm enton A pr i l 12, 2005. 6 regar ding t he JA D O defe nd ants . W e no rm al l yw ou l d lack app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on becau se t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the cl ai m s agai ns tthos e def endant s w i t houtpr ej udi ce. H er e, how ever , W al l ace ar gues t hatt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons has run on hi s cl ai m s , thus m aki ng t he di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce e ffe ct i vel yfi nal . W e s ee no r eas on t o ques t i on that a ss e rtio n . In a n ye v e n t, W a llac e ’s b rie f m a k e s c lea r h is in ten tio n to sta n d o n h is 3 compl ai nt . T hus , forei t herorbot h of thos e r eas ons , w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . S ee In re W esti n g h o u se S ec s. L it ig., 9 0 F . 3 d 6 9 6 , 7 0 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). W all ac e a rgu es f

ir st th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing h is m o ti o n fo r a defa ul tj udgm entagai ns tt he J A D O defe ndant s . W e r evi ew thatrul i ng forabus e of dis cret i on , see C ham berl ai n v . G i am pap a, 21 0 F . 3d 15 4, 16 4 (3d C i r. 20 00 ), bu texerci se pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng on t he val i di t yof s ervi ce of pr oces s , s ee U m b e n h a u e r v . W o o g , 9 6 9 F .2 d 2 5 , 2 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). W e f in d n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r h e re . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yexpl ai ned thata def aul tj udgm entcannotbe ent er ed on a compl ai ntt hathas notbeen va l i dl ys erved. See Petrucel l i v. B ohr i ngerand R at zi nger , 46 F. 3d 1298, 1304 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfur t herconcl uded thatthe W al l ace s h a d n o t v a lid ly se rv e d th e irc o m p la in t. W e a g re e , b u t f o r a d if f e re n t r e a s o n . T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatthe W al l ace s had s erved the J A D O defe ndant s by c e rtifie d m a il an d c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ s]e rv ice th ro u g h th e U n ited S tate s m a il i s in su f f icie n t”T he r ecor d i s devoi d of anyevi dence r egar di ng w hetherJ ul i an A s enci o w as 4 author i zed t o acc epts ervi ce on be hal f of J A D O A s s oci at es orD or ca A s enci o. A l t hough “the part yas s er t i ng t he val i di t yof s ervi ce be ar s the bur den of pr oof on thati s s ue, ” G r and E n tm ’t G p ., L td . v . S tar M e d ia S a les , In c ., 9 8 8 F .2 d 4 7 6 , 4 8 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ), w e w ill as s um e forpr es entpurpos es t hatJ ul i an A s enci o w as s o author i zed. 7 underFed. R . C i v. P. 4( e) ( governi ng s ervi ce of i ndi vi dual s ) and R ul e 4( h) ( governi ng serv ice o n co rpo rati o n s an d o ther a sso ciati o n s). A s W all ac e a rgu es o n ap p ea l, h o w ev er, e a c h ru le p e rm its se rv ice a c c o rd in g to th e law o f th e sta te in w h ich th e d istric t co u rt is l ocat ed ( her e, Penns y l vani a) . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 4( e) ( 1) , 4( h) ( 1) ( A ) . Penns y l vani a l aw i n tur n perm i t s s ervi ce on out - of- s t at e def endant s by“anyform of m ai l r equi r i ng a r ece i pt s i gned byt he def

endantorhi s author i zed a gent , ” and pr ovi des thats ervi ce i s eff ect i ve on r e c e i p t . P a . R. Ci v . P . 4 0 3 , 4 0 4 ( 2 ) . He r e , Wa l l a c e s e r v e d th e c o mp l a i n to n th e J ADO defe ndant s i n N ew Y or k ( w her e theyal l egedl yr es i de) bycert i fi ed mai l r equi r i ng a s i gned recei pt, and he sub m i t t ed a co pyof the recei pt s i gn ed b ydefe nd ant J uli an A senci o. T hu s, th is m a n n e r o f

se rv ice w a s p ro p e r u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia la w , at le a st a s to th a t d e f e n d a n t. 4 T hats ervi ce, how ever , w as unt i m el y . Ser vi ce mustbe ef fec t ed w i t hi n 120 day s of fi l i ng t he compl ai nt . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 4( m ) . T he W al l ace s fi l ed thei rcompl ai nton M ar ch 22, 2007, butdi d nots erve i tunt i l J ul i an A s enci o r ece i ved i ton A ugus t2, 2007, 132 day s l at er . Ser vi ce w as unt i m el yeven us i ng the dat e of mai l i ng, J ul y27, 2007, w hi ch wa s 1 2 7 d a y s a f

t e rt h e Wa l l a c e s f

i l e d th e i rc o mp l a i n t . T h u s , b e c a u s e th e J ADO defe nd ants had no tbeen vali dlyserved , no defa ultj ud gm ent coul d b e enter ed ag ai nstE ven i f s ervi ce ha d been t i m el y , a def aul tj udgm ents t i l l w oul d nothave be en pr oper 5 beca us e, as expl ai ned bel ow , t he compl ai ntfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be g ran ted. S ee A lan N eu m an P rod s. , Inc . v . A lbri g h t, 8 6 2 F . 2 d 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 9 2 -93 (9th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (v a c a tin g d e f

a u lt en ter e d o n leg a llyin su f f icie n t cla im b e c a u se a d e f a u lt ad m its o n ly w ell -plea d ed fa cts an d n o t l eg al co n clus ion s). Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d t h e s e c l a i ms f o rtwo r e a s o n s – p u r s u a n tt o Ru l e 4 ( m) 6 beca us e s ervi ce ha d notbeen e ffe ct ed w i t hi n 120 day s of fi l i ng the compl ai nt , and pu rs uan tt o R ule 8 for non com pli ance therew i t h. W e revi ew each type o f rul i ng for abu se of di s cr et i on. See A y er s v. J acobs & C rum pl ar , P. A . , 99 F. 3d 565, 568 ( 3d C i r . 1996) (d ism iss a ls u n d e r R u le 4 ); In re W e stin g h o u se S e c s. L iti g ., 9 0 F .3 d 6 9 6 a t 7 0 2 (d ism iss a ls underR ul e 8) . I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notpr ovi de the W al l ace s w i t h not i ce and an opportuni t yt o r es pond befor e s ua s pont e di s m i s s i ng thei rcl ai m s . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 4( m ) ( pr ovi di ng t hata di s t r i ctcour tm aydi s m i s s “on mot i on oron i t s ow n aft ernot i ce t o t he pl ai nt i ff” ) . C f. O at es s v. Sobol evi t ch, 914 F. 3d 428, 430 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( expl ai ni ng t hatcour t s m ays ua s pont e di s m i s s a compl ai ntunderR ul e 12( b) ( 6) “s o l ong as t he pl ai nt i ff i s acc or ded an opportuni t yt o r es pond”) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o di d not pr oper l yappl yR ul e 4( m ) beca us e i tfai l ed t o cons i derw hetherthe W al l ace s had “good caus e” f ort he l at e s ervi ce orw hethert o al l ow l at e s ervi ce i n t he exe r ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on i n l i eu of di s m i s s al . See Petrucel l i , 46 F. 3d at1305- 06 ( s et t i ng for t h anal y s i s r equi r ed underR ul e 4( m ) ) . I n addi t i on, w e have hel d i n othercont ext s thatdi s t r i ctcour t s m aynot di s m i s s compl ai nt s s ua s pont e bef or e s ervi ce of

pr oces s . See O at es s , 914 F. 3d at430- 31 ( di s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) ) ; U rbano v. C al i s s i , 353 F. 2d 196, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1965) (c o n tin u e d ...) 8 t hem. See Petrucel l i , 46 F. 3d at1304. 5 W a llac e ’s s e c o n d a rg u m e n t is th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yg ra n tin g h im lea v e to fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai ntaft erdi s m i s s i ng hi s cl ai m s w i t houtpr ej udi ce be caus e the st atute of l i m i t at i on s al readyhad run on tho se cl ai m s. T hu s, he argu es, the m eri t s of t ho se cl ai m s can be deci ded “onl ynow i n t hi s appea l . ” W al l ace , how ever , does notar gue that t he ac tual di s m i s s al of hi s cl ai m s w as err oneous i n anyr es pect , and he r ai s es no ar gum ent a b o u t th e irm e ri t o n a p p e a l. A n yp o te n tia l e rr o r i n th is re g a rd is th u s w a iv e d . N evert hel es s , w e not e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t , des pi t e s om e i r r egul ar i t i es i n i t s appr oach, 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 ( di s m i s s al forl ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on) . N ei t herof thes e ca s es addr es s ed a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch a pl ai nt i ff ha d s erved pr oces s buthad done s o unt i m el y . I n l i ghtof our di s pos i t i on, w e nee d notcons i dert he s i gni fi canc e of thatdi s t i nct i on. I n addi t i on t o hi s s ubs t ant i ve ar gum ent s , W al l ace as ks us t o addr es s w hetherD i s t r i ct 7 J udge H i l l m an ort he D i s t r i ctC our tC l erk’ s O ffi ce mi ghtbe s ubj ectt o l i abi l i t yfor “del ay i ng” the entr yof def aul tagai ns tthe J A D O defe ndant s . T he Feder al E m pl oy ee d e f e n d a n ts rig h tlya rg u e th a t W a llac e ’s a rg u m e n ts, ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l,

(c o n tin u e d ...) 9 di d notcomm i tr ever s i bl e err ori n di s m i s s i ng thes e cl ai m s beca us e theys o cl ear l yl ack m e ri t. S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 1 . Itis cl ea r fro m the W all ac es’ c o m p lai n t th at th e o n lyclaim theyinten d ed to as sert agai ns tt he J A D O defe ndant s w as a cl ai m under§ 1983 t hatthos e def endant s vi ol at ed t hei rfede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . I ti s al s o cl earfr om thei rcompl ai ntthattheynei t her a lleg e d n o r c a n a lleg e a n yth in g th a t m ig h t tran sf o rm th e p riv a te J A D O d e f e n d a n ts in to s t at e ac t or s for§ 1983 purpos es . T he W al l ace s al l ege the J A D O defe ndant s s houl d be deemed s t at e ac t or s beca us e theydefr auded a cour tand a j udge “a cqui es ced. ” Thi s i s t he v e r ys a me t h e o r yo f

s t a t e a c t i o n t h a twe r e

j e c t e d i n Wa l l a c e ’ s p r i o ra p p e a l . As we expl ai ned i n t hatcas e, l i t i gat i on “does nottr ans form a pr i vat e ac t ori nt o an ent i t yact i ng undercol orof s t at e orfede r al l aw , ” and c oncl us oryal l egat i ons of cons pi r acydo not s uffi ce. W al l ace , 2008 W L 786738, at*2. See al s o J or dan v. Fox, R oths chi l d, O ’ B r i en & Fr ankel , 20 F. 3d 1250, 1265 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( expl ai ni ng thatther e i s no s t at e ac t i on for purpos es of § 1983 w hen a pr i vat e l i t i gantm er el yobt ai ns a j udgm entw i t h “ac qui es cenc e b yth e sta te” ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 7( . . . cont i nued) 7 cannots t at e a ba s i s forr el i ef, and i n anyeventther e i s no m er i tt o hi s as s ert i ons , w hi ch W al l ace him sel f ack no w l edg es r ai se only“t heo ret i cal ” and “hypo t heti cal ” i ssues. 10 O n e f in a l m a tter m e rits m e n tio n . In W a llac e ’s p rio r a p p e a l, w e c a u tio n e d th a t, shou l d h e “con t i nu e t o fil e l aw sui t s agai nsti m m un e or ot herw i se i m proper defe nd ants , t he D i s t r i ctC our torw e coul d ent eran or derr es t r i ct i ng hi s fi l i ng of s uch ca s es . ” W all ac e, 20 0 8 W L 7 8 6 7 3 8 , at *2 . W all ac e a lr ea d yh ad fil ed the c o m p lai n t atissue h ere w hen w e i ssued t hat opi nion, and he w i sel yhas no tpress ed in this app eal cl ai m s agai nst p arti es th at w e a lr ea d yh av e a d d resse d . T h u s, w e w il l t ak e n o fu rth er a cti o n in this reg ard att hi s t i m e exc eptt o r epea tt he w arni ng, part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof W al l ace ’ s appar ent c o n tem p latio n o f

c laim s a g a in st J u d g e H ill m a n . W e su g g e st th a t W a llac e b e a r th is w arni ng i n m i nd, as anycour the maycome befor e i n t he futur e undoubt edl yw i l l do.