2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-18-2006

Carroway v. State of NJ

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-3087

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Carroway v. State of NJ" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 315.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/315
APS-346 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

NO. 06-3087

________________

DAVID O. CARROWAY,

 Appellant

 v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY;

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY;

MORRIS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT;

UNION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT;

J.S.C. JOSEPH A. FALCONE;

VICTOR R. JUSINO, ESQ., ASST. PROSECUTOR;

MORRIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE;

UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE;

HONORABLE J.S.C. JOHN S. TRIARSI;

DAVID HAMMEL, ESQ., ASST. PROSECUTOR

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 06-CV-00614)

District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano

____________________________________

Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

September 28, 2006

BEFORE: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed: October 18, 2006)
2

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM

David O. Carroway appeals from an order of the United States District Court for

the District of New Jersey, dismissing his complaint with prejudice for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. We will similarly dismiss the appeal pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

Carroway filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil

rights in connection with the open-court publicizing of his status as an informant on two

separate occasions in the Superior Court of New Jersey. At the time of the incidents,

Carroway was appearing before the court in criminal proceedings pending against him.

During the first instance, Carroway’s attorney met in chambers with the Judge and

the Assistant Prosecutor. Carroway’s attorney informed the other two that Carroway was

cooperating with law enforcement in another jurisdiction in a murder case. Carroway

states that the defendants then stated that he was an informant in a murder case in open

court, before other prisoners and spectators. He argued that this disclosure violated his

Sixth Amendment rights to attorney client privilege, violated his rights to equal protection

and due process, and led him to being harassed, threatened, assaulted, and living in fear

for his life.
3

On the second incident, Carroway appeared in another court on a burglary charge. 

Carroway alleges that the Judge disclosed that he was an informant in open court in front

of corrections officers. Carroway states that word of the disclosure got back to other

prison staff and inmates, leading to his harassment, assault, and to his suffering extreme

mental anguish and living in fear for his life. Carroway argues that the disclosure of the

information, received from his attorney, violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective

counsel, equal protection of the law, due process, and subjected him to cruel and unusual

punishment. Carroway also alleges that canons of judicial ethics were breached on both

occasions.

Carroway sued the State of New Jersey, the Honorable Joseph A. Falcone, two

Assistant Prosecutors, the Honorable John S. Triarsi, the Superior Court of the State of

New Jersey, Morris County Superior Court, Union County Superior Court, the Morris

County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Union County Prosecutor’s Office. His complaint

was dismissed for failure to state a claim by the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey. The District Court found that all named defendants were immune

from suit under the Eleventh Amendment or judicial or prosecutorial immunity.

We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of Carroway’s claims against the

State of New Jersey, the Superior Court of New Jersey and the Morris and Union County

Courts on the ground that those defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh

Amendment. As the District Court correctly stated, the Eleventh Amendment applies to

§ 1983 claims. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). The
Carroway’s motion for appointment of counsel; and his motion for bail, construed 1

as a motion for bail pending appeal, are denied as moot. To the extent he seeks to have

this Court set bail for his state court criminal proceedings, we decline to intercede in the

state court proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We similarly deny

Carroway’s motion for an injunction by applying the Younger abstention doctrine. “For

the Younger doctrine to apply, state court proceedings must be pending or ongoing, the

state proceedings must implicate an important state interest, and the state proceedings

must afford an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional issues.” Taliaferro v. Darby

Tp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 192 (3d Cir. 2006). We find all three requirements to be

satisfied here.

4

Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states. See Bolden v. SEPTA, 953 F.2d 807, 813

(3d Cir. 1991). We further agree that the Superior Court of New Jersey and the Morris

and Union County courts are part of the judicial branch of New Jersey and are thus

immune pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 869 F.

Supp. 289, 296-98 (D. N.J. 1994). In any event, none of these courts is a “person” subject

to liability under § 1983. See Will, 491 U.S. at 71.

We agree that because the two state court judges named in the complaint were

acting in a judicial capacity at Carroway’s hearings, they enjoy absolute judicial immunity

for their acts. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980). Furthermore, the claims against

the two Assistant Prosecutors were subject to dismissal under the doctrine of absolute

immunity, because there is no indication that they were acting outside their prosecutorial

roles. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976).

For the above reasons and those stated by the District Court, we will dismiss the

appeal for failure to state a claim upon which may be granted.1