2005 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 9-19-2005 

# S aunde rs -El v

. U SA 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 . 04-2986

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_2005

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 2005 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 " S aunde r s -El v

. U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 531. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/531NOT 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 os . 04- 2986 & 04- 4755 EDW AR D B . SAU ND ERS- EL, A ppel l ant v. THE UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA; J UDG E DI TT ER; J UDG ES BEC HTL E; S HAPI RO; DEBE VOI S E, W EI NER; NA M ED A ND UN AM ED C ON SP I RA TOR S DEFEND AN TS

____________________________________ 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. 04- cv- 01625) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t4, 2005 BEFORE: ALI TO, SM I TH an d CO W EN, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: Sept ember19, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM E dw ar d Saunder s - E l , a pr o s e l i t i gant , fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n w hi ch he a l l eged thatt he d efen dan tfede ral dis t ri ctcou rtj ud ges eng aged i n a co nspir acyof raci al and cl assbas ed di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of hi s fede r al r i ght s . Saunder s - E l cl ai m s t hatt he j udges vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l r i ght s by , i nt eral i a, deny i ng habea s r el i ef, di s m i s s i ng num er ous c o m p la in ts , a n d a d v e rs e ly ru lin g o n m o tio n s in p re v io u s c iv il a c tio n s th a t h e f ile d . Saunder s - E l s oughtdamages and i nj unct i ve r el i ef. T h e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that S au n d ers-E l’ s claim s ag ains t th e U n it ed S tat es a re barr ed b yt he d octr i ne o f sove rei gn i m m un i t y . In addit i on , t he co urtfou nd t hat because al l of the cl ai m s agai ns tt he fe der al j udges i nvol ved ac t i ons t aken i n t hei roffi ci al j udi ci al capa ci t y , t heyar e i m m une fr om s ui t . T hus , on J une 11, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s ed the compl ai nt . Saunder s - E l t i m el yfi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 59( e) . B efor e the D i s t r i ctC our trul ed on the m o ti o n , S au n d ers-E l fi led a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l from the f inal jud g m en t ( C . A . N o . 0 4 -29 8 6 ). Saunder s - E l fi l ed s ever al s ubs equentm ot i ons i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . O n D ece m ber20, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed al l pendi ng m ot i ons , and Saunder s - E l appea l ed thatrul i ng ( C . A . N o. 04- 4755) . T he appe al s have be en cons ol i dat ed fordi s pos i t i on. S a u n d e rs- E l co n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlya p p lied ju d icia l im m u n ity t o hi s cl ai m s agai ns tt he j udges . See B r . at3. I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that“j udges d e f e n d in g a g a in st § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n s e n jo ya b so lu te im m u n ityf ro m d a m a g e s lia b ili tyf o r a c ts per form ed i n t hei rj udi ci al capa ci t i es . ” D enni s v. Spar ks , 449 U . S. 24, 27 ( 1980) . H er e, t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he ac t s compl ai ned of– de ny i ng habea s r el i ef, di s m i s s i ng nu m erous com plai nts , and rul i ng on m oti on s– w ere cl earl yal l perform ed in the judge s’o f

f ic ia l c a p a c ity. T h e re f

o re , th e ju d g e s a re im m u n e . S e e G a lla s v . S u p re m e C o u rt o f P a ., 211 F. 3d 760, 768- 73 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed S aun ders- E l ’s ci vil ri gh t s cl ai m s. W e h a v e f

u llyc o n sid e re d a ll o f

th e a rg u m e n ts ra ise d b yS a u n d e rs- E l o n a p p e a l, and fi nd t hatt heyl ack mer i tand w arr antno fur t herdi s cus s i on. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forr ecus al of J udges Sm i t h and C ow en i s deni ed. A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance i s deni ed a s m o o t.