NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 20

- 2 880

___________ JAMAAL GITTENS
,

Appellant

v.

JUDGE MELISSA T. PAVLACK

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 5

- 20

- cv

- 00 683 ) District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

J a n u a r y 2 2
, 2 0 2 1 Before : J O R D A N , M A T E Y , a n d N Y G A A R D , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : February 1, 2021 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM

In Feb ruary 2020
, Jamaal Gittens filed a civil rights complaint against Judge
Melissa Pavlack of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas

. Gittens clai med that

* T his disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Judge Pavlack violated his Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from involuntary

servitude when she o rdered that Gittens’ bank assets be frozen pursuant to state law
governing the enforcement of child support obligations. He also claimed that Ju dge

Pavlack ’ s “ contract with the government ” to locate non

- custodial parents and obtain their
private financial information violated his constitutional rights

. See Complaint, ECF No.

2 at 2. He requested civil damages. Id. at 3.
The District Court grant ed Gittens’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis but
dismissed his complaint sua sponte because Judge Pavlack is protected by judicial

imm unity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (stating that a court must dismiss a lawsuit
filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis that “seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief” ). Gittens f iled a motion for rehearin g , which

the District Court construed as a motion for reconsideration and denied. Gittens
appealed. 1

We will affirm. A judge is immune from damages liability for all actions taken in

her judicial capacity, unless such action is taken in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction. ”

See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 356

– 57 (1978) (citation omitted)

. Gittens does

not argue

— nor does it appear

— that Judge Pavlack acted in the absence of all
jurisdiction. Rather , Judge Pavlack’s order was a judici al act that was made in

1 We have jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District C ourt’s sua sponte dismissal of Gittens’ comp laint, see Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of his reconsideration motion, see Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou

- Ann, Inc. v. Quinter os , 176 F.3 d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999).3

accordance with state law. See Figueroa v. Blackburn , 208 F.3d 435, 44 3 (3d Cir. 2000)
( explaining that a “

judicial act” is one that is “normally performed by a judge”); 23 Pa.

Cons. Sta t . § 4305 (b)(10) ( stating that t he domestic r elations section of a Court of

Common Pleas can issue orders to “ secure assets to satisfy current support obligation ”
by, among othe r things, “ [ a ] ttaching and seizing assets of the obligor held in financial
institutions”).
Because Judge Pavlac k is immune f rom suit, we agree with the District Court that
allowing Gittens to amend his complaint would have been futile

. See Grayson v.
Mayv iew State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) ; s ee also Alvin. v. Suzuki , 227
F.3d 107, 121 (3d Cir. 2000) ( explaining that amendment is futile where the amended
complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim). 2

We will th erefore affirm the judgment of the District Court

.

2 We also conclud e that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gittens’ motion for reconsideration because the motion did not meet the require ments under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Lazaridis v. Wehmer , 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (describing the grounds for a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)); Budget Blinds , 536 F.3d at 251 (3d Cir. 2 008) (describing same under Rule 60(b)).