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 3-27-2009 

# M ary Whit e v

. S upre me C t of N

J 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 . 08-3818

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 " M ary Whit e v

. S upr e me C t of N

J " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1653. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1653B L D - 103 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. 08- 3818

___________ M AR Y E. W HI TE, A ppel l ant

v. S UP RE M E CO UR T OF NE W J E RS E Y; CH I EF J USTI CE STUA RT RA BN ER

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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 02300) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

February12, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , FI SH E R and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 27, 2009)

__________ OP I NI ON

__________ P E R C UR I AM M aryW hi t e, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the or der s of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eydi s m i s s i ng hercas e and de ny i ng herm ot i on for r econs i der at i on, r es pect i vel y . B eca us e the appe al does notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on,I tappea r s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tC l erk’ s offi ce r ej ect ed W hi t e’ s or i gi nal “not i ce 1 of appe al ” i n A pr i l 2008. I tappea r s t hatone of the cl ai m s W hi t e r ai s ed i n herpet i t i on w as thats he w as 2 e n tit led to a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s f o r p ro se w o rk sh e h a d c o m p lete d in th a t ca se . H e r a ttem p t in t he i ns t antcas e t o i nvoke the Equal A cce s s t o J us t i ce A ctas a means of obt ai ni ng a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s in h e r sta te c o u rt c a se is m isp lac e d , as th e sta tu te is c lea rlyin a p p lica b le h ere . S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 4 1 2 (d)(1 )(A ). I n W hi t e’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , s he r eques t ed that 3 t he court“gr antm yA ppl i cat i on forR epr es ent at i on ( s entw i t h C ert i fi cat i on) . ” Lat er , i n a Ju ly2 0 0 8 f

ili n g , sh e sta ted th a t h e r m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n in c lu d e d “ a re q u e st to r econs i derdeni al of [r ] epr es ent at i on. ” Fi nal l y , i n hernot i ce of appea l , s he not es thats he h a s “ m a d e se v e ra l atte m p ts to g e t [ r]e p re se n tatio n in a ll co u rt m a tters ,” a n d th a t sh e is “ w ith o u t [ r] e p re s e n ta tio n .” 2 w e w il l sum m aril yaf

firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers. Se e 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 . 4 ; 3d C ir . I . O . P. 10. 6. I n M a y2 0 0 8 , W h i t e i n i t i a t e d th e i n s t a n ta c t i o n a g a i n s tth e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me C o u rt a n d its C h ie f

J u s tic e b yf

ilin g a n “ a m e n d e d n o tic e o f a p p e a l” in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .

1 W hi t e s oughtr evi ew of the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t ’ s deni al of herpet i t i on for c e rtific a tio n in a c h ild c u sto d yc a se . In a d d iti o n to h e r a m e n d e d n o tice o f a p p e a l, W h ite 2 f iled a d o c u m e n t en tit led “ C e rtific a tio n f o r R e p re se n tatio n A p p lica tio n .” A lth o u g h th is d o cu m en t essen ti all yrec o u n ted a n u m b er o f p rob lem s tha t al lege d lyh ad arisen in W h it e’s n u m e ro u s N e w Je rse ysta te c o u rt c a se s, h e r la ter f ili n g s s u g g e st th a t sh e f iled th is d o c u m e n t eith e r to c o n tes t h e r la c k o f c o u n se l in th o se N e w Je rse ysta te c o u rt c a se s o r to obt ai n cour t - appoi nt ed couns el i n t he i ns t antcas e. 33

L a ter in M a y2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d W h ite’s c laim s s u a sp o n te pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915. T he courtl i ber al l ycons t rued W hi t e’ s fi l i ngs as ei t her s eeki ng di r ectappel l at e r evi ew of the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on oras s ert i ng cl ai m s under42 U . S. C . § 1983. T he courtconcl uded that( 1) underthe R ooker - Fel dm an d o ctri n e, th e c o u rtlack ed juri sd ict ion to ex erc ise ap p ell ate rev iew o v er the stat e c o u rt ’s d e c is io n ; a n d (2 ) W h ite ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im s w e re b a rr e d b yth e d o c tr in e o f ju d ic ia l im m u n ity. In Ju n e 2 0 0 8 , W h it e m o v ed fo r reco n side rati o n o f th e d ism issal, w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt den i ed in A ug ust20 08 . W hit e no w t i m el yapp eal s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s M ayand A ug ust 2 0 0 8 o rd e rs to th is C o u rt. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1, and exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of W hi t e’ s cl ai m s . See Turne rv. C r aw for d Squar e A par t m ent s I I I , L . P. , 449 F. 3d 542, 547 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( exer ci s i ng pl enaryr evi ew overdi s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nvocat i on of R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne) ; T our s cherv. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( exer ci s i ng pl enaryr evi ew overdi s t r i ct cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ) . T o t he ext ent W hi t e s oughtappel l at e r evi ew of the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on, the D i s t r i ct C our tcorr ect l yi nvoked the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne and di s m i s s ed hercl ai m s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. U ndert he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, fede r al di s t r i ctcour t s l ack s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew cert ai n s t at e courtdeci s i ons . T urner , 449 F. 3d at547. T he doctr i ne appl i es t o “ca s es br oughtbys t at e- cour tl os er s compl ai ni ng of i nj ur i es caus ed byC hi ef J us t i ce Rabnerdeni ed W hi t e’ s s t at e courtm ot i on s eeki ng r econs i der at i on of 4 t he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t ’ s deni al of herpet i t i on forcert i fi cat i on. 4 s t at e- cour tj udgm ent s r ender ed bef or e the di s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ngs comm ence d and i nvi t i ng di s t r i ctcour tvi ew and r ej ect i on of thos e j udgm ent s . ” Exxon M obi l C orp. v. S au d i B asic In d u s. C o rp., 5 4 4 U . S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (20 0 5 ). A lth o u g h R o o k er-F eldm an is a v ery narr ow doctr i ne, s ee Exxon M obi l , 544 U . S. at284, i tnevert hel es s i s i m pl i cat ed her e, as t he i ns t antcl ai m s ( 1) w er e r ai s ed af t erthe N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t ’ s adver s e rul i ng and ( 2) s oughtt o nul l i fyt hatrul i ng. Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta l s o c o r r e c t l yc o n c l u d e d th a tW h i t e ’ s c l a i ms f a i l a s 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 98 3 clai m s. In m ostci rcum st ances, § 1 98 3 b ars i njunct i ve rel i ef cl ai m s agai nst j u d i c i a l o f

f i c e r s f o ra c t s o ro mi s s i o n s ma d e i n th e i rj u d i c i a l c a p a c i t y . S e e 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 (“ [ I]n a n ya c tio n b ro u g h t ag a in st a ju d icia l o f f ice r f o r a n a c t o r o m iss io n tak e n in su ch o ff icer’s j u d ici al ca p ac ity , injun cti v e re li ef sh all n o t be g ran ted u n less a d ec laratory d e c re e w a s v io late d o r d e c lar a to ryre lief w a s u n a v a ilab le.” ). G iv e n th a t th e e x c e p tio n s to t hi s pr ovi s i on do notappl yher e, W hi t e’ s cl ai m s , t o t he ext enttheys eek t o att ack the C h ief Ju sti ce o f th e N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rtfo r his ruli n g in h er state co u rtca se, are 4 barr ed. Fur t herm or e, t o t he ext entW hi t e’ s “C ert i fi cat i on forR epr es ent at i on A ppl i cat i on” ca n b e c o n stru ed as a ll eg ing a v iolati o n o f h er righ t t o co u n sel i n the s tat e c o u rt pr ocee di ngs , t hi s cl ai m i s w i t houtm er i t , as a ci vi l l i t i gantdoes nothave a cons t i tut i onal ri g h t t o co u n sel. S ee P arh am v . Jo h n so n , 1 2 6 F . 3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ).5

A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of W h it e’s cl ai m s and the court ’ s deni al of herm ot i on forr econs i der at i on.