2006 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 10-18-2006 

# C arrowa y v . S t at e 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 . 06-3087

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_2006

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 2006 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 " C arr owa y v . S t at e of N J " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 315. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/315AP S - 3 4 6 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- 3087

________________ DAVI D O. CA RR OWAY, A ppel l ant v. S T AT E OF NE W J E RS E Y; S UP E RI OR CO UR T OF T HE S T AT E OF NE W J E RS E Y; M OR RI S COU NTY SUPERI OR CO UR T; UN I ON CO UN TY SU PERI OR CO UR T; J . S. C. J OSEPH A . FALCO NE; VI CTOR R . J USI NO, ES Q. , ASS T. P ROS ECUT OR; M OR RI S COU NTY PROSECU TOR ' S OFF I CE; UN I ON CO UN TY PRO SECUTO R' S OFF I CE; H O N O R A B L E J. S . C . JO H N S . T R IA R S I; DAVI D HAMM E L , E S Q. , AS S T . P RO S E CU T OR

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 v. N o. 06- C V - 00614) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

____________________________________ 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) Sept ember28, 2006 BEFORE: SLOV I TER, M c KEE an d FI SHER, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: O ct ober18, 2006)2 _______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM D avi d O . C arr ow ayappea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntw i t h pr ej udi ce f orfai l ur e t o s t at e a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief m a yb e g ra n ted . W e w ill sim ilarlyd ism iss th e a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e). C a rro w a yf

iled su it p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a lleg in g v io latio n s o f h is c iv il r i g h t s i n c o n n e c t i o n wi t h t h e o p e n - c o u r tp u b l i c i z i n g o f h i s s t a tu s a s a n i n f

o r ma n to n t wo separat e occa si on s i n the Su peri or C ou rtof N ew Jer sey . A tthe ti m e of the i ncident s, Ca r r o wa ywa s a p p e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r ti n c r i mi n a l p r o c e e d i n g s p e n d i n g a g a i n s th i m. D ur i ng t he fi r s ti ns t ance , C arr ow ay ’ s at t orneym eti n chamber s w i t h t he J udge and t he A s s i s t antPr os ecut or . C arr ow ay ’ s at t orneyi nform ed the othertw o t hatC arr ow ayw as cooper at i ng w i t h l aw enfor cementi n anotherj ur i s di ct i on i n a murde rcas e. C arr ow ay s t at es t hatt he def

endant s t hen s t at ed thathe w as an i nform anti n a murde rcas e i n open c o u rt, b e f

o re o th e r p riso n e rs a n d sp e c tato rs. H e a rg u e d th a t th is d isc lo su re v io late d h is Si xt h A m endmentr i ght s t o at t or neycl i entpr i vi l ege, vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s t o equal pr ot ect i on and due pr oces s , and l ed hi m t o bei ng har as s ed, thr eat ened, as s aul t ed, and l i vi ng i n fea r forhi s l i fe.3

O n th e s e c o n d in c id e n t, C a rr o w a ya p p e a re d in a n o th e r c o u rt o n a b u rg la ry c h a rg e . C arr ow ayal l eges t hatt he J udge di s cl os ed thathe w as an i nform anti n open courti n fr ont of corr ect i ons offi cer s . C arr ow ays t at es thatw or d of the di s cl os ur e gotback t o other p r i s o n s t a f

f a n d i n ma t e s , l e a d i n g t o h i s h a r a s s me n t , a s s a u l t , a n d t o h i s s u f f e r i n g e x t r e me m ent al angui s h and l i vi ng i n fea rforhi s l i fe. C arr ow ayar gues thatthe di s cl os ur e of the i nform at i on, r ece i ved fr om hi s at t or ney , vi ol at ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o eff ect i ve couns el , equal pr ot ect i on of the l aw , due pr oces s , and s ubj ect ed hi m t o cruel and unus ual p u n ish m e n t. C a rro w a ya lso a lleg e s th a t ca n o n s o f ju d icia l eth ics w e re b re a c h e d o n b o th occasi on s. Ca r r o wa ys u e d t h e S t a t e o f Ne w J e r s e y , th e Ho n o r a b l e J o s e p h A. F a l c o n e , two A s s i s t antPr os ecut or s , t he H onor abl e J ohn S. T r i ar s i , the Super i orC our tof the St at e of N e w Je rse y , M o rris C o u n tyS u p e rio r C o u rt, U n io n C o u n tyS u p e rio r C o u rt, th e M o rris C ount yPr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce, and the U ni on C ount yPr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce. H i s compl ai nt w as di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatal l named defenda nt s w er e i m m une f r o m s u i tu n d e rt h e E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n to rj u d i c i a l o rp r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i t y. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of C arr ow ay ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tthe S tate o f N e w Je rse y , the S u p e rio r C o u rt o f N e w Je rse ya n d th e M o rris a n d U n io n C o u n ty C o u rts o n th e g ro u n d th a t th o se d e f e n d a n ts a re im m u n e f

ro m su it u n d e r th e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t. A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlysta ted , the E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t ap p lies to § 1983 cl ai m s . W i l l v. M i chi gan D ep’ tof St at e Pol i ce, 491 U . S. 58, 66 ( 1989) . T heC arr ow ay ’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el ; and hi s m ot i on forbai l , cons t rued 1 as a mot i on forbai l pendi ng appea l , ar e deni ed as m oot . T o t he ext enthe s eeks t o have t hi s C our ts etbai l forhi s s t at e courtcr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs , w e dec l i ne t o i nt er cede i n the s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs . See Y oungerv. H arr i s , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) . W e s i m i l ar l ydeny C arr ow ay ’ s m ot i on foran i nj unct i on byappl y i ng the Y oungerabs t ent i on doctr i ne. “For t he Y oungerdoctr i ne t o appl y , s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs m us tbe pendi ng orongoi ng, the s t at e pr ocee di ngs m us ti m pl i cat e an i m por t ants t at e i nt er es t , and the s t at e pr ocee di ngs m us taff or d an ade quat e oppor tuni t yt o r ai s e cons t i tut i onal i s s ues . ” Tal i afe r r o v. D arby T p. Z oni ng B d. , 458 F. 3d 181, 192 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e fi nd al l thr ee r equi r ement s t o be s at i s fi ed her e. 4 E l eventh A m endmentbar s s ui t s agai ns ts t at es . See B ol den v. SE PT A , 953 F. 2d 807, 813 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). W e f

u rth e r a g re e th a t th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f N e w Je rse ya n d th e M o rris and U ni on C ount ycour t s ar e partof the j udi ci al br anch of N ew J er s eyand ar e thus i mm un e pu r s ua ntt o the El e ve nth Am e nd ment . J oh ns on v. St a t e of N e w J e r s e y , 86 9 F. Supp. 289, 296- 98 ( D . N . J . 1994) . I n anyevent , none of thes e court s i s a “pe r s on” s ubj ect t o l i abi l i t yunder§ 1983. See W i l l , 491 U . S. at71. W e a g ree that b ec au se th e tw o stat e c o u rtjud g es n am ed in the co m p lai n t w ere a c tin g in a ju d icia l ca p a c itya t C a rro w a y ’s h e a rin g s, th e ye n jo ya b so lu te ju d icia l im m u n ity for theiract s. D enn i s v. S parks, 44 9 U . S . 24 , 27 (1980 ). F urtherm ore, the clai m s agai nst th e tw o A ss ista n t P ro se c u to rs w e re su b jec t to d ism iss a l u n d e r th e d o c trin e o f a b so lu te i m m uni t y , beca us e ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thattheyw er e ac t i ng out s i de thei rpr os ecut or i al roles. S ee Im b ler v. P ac h tm an , 4 2 4 U . S . 4 0 9 , 4 3 1 (19 7 6 ). Fort he above r eas ons and thos e s t at ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , w e w i l l di s m i s s the appea l forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch maybe gr ant ed. 1