NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

N o. 2 0

- 1 9 3 0

________ _

_

FITZROY A. CLIFFORD

,

Appell a nt

v.

JUDGE STEPHEN L. PETRILLO;

JUDGE CHRISTOPHER ROMANYSHYN;

MICHAEL C O BB

______ ___________________ ___________

On Appeal from the U n ited Sta tes District Court

f or the Di stri c t o f N e w J e r s e y

(D.C. Ci v il Action No. 2

- 19

- cv

- 13571 )

District Judge: Ho nora ble Madeline C. Arleo

____________________________________

Submitted Pur s ua nt to Th ird Circuit LAR 34. 1(a)

S e p t e m b e r 2 5

, 2 0 2 0

B efore: J O R D A N

, B I B A S

, a n d P H I P P S

, Circuit Judges

( Op inion filed September 29, 2020 )

____ _____ __

OPINION *

____ _____ __

PER CURIAM

* Thi s d isp o sition i s n ot an opinio n of t he full C o ur t and pur suant t o I.O.P. 5.7 does not

cons ti tute binding pr e cedent.2

Pro se app ellant F i t z r o y C l i f f o r d appeal s f

r o m the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r

d i s m i s s i n g h i s c i v i l r i g h t s c o m p l a i n t

. For the reasons d i s c u s s e d b elow, we will af firm

.

I

.

I n J u n e 2 0 1 9

, C l i f

f o r d f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, r a i s i n g n u m e r o u s

c l a i m s s t e m m i n g f

r o m h i s f a m i l y c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f N e w J e r s e y

.

C l i f f o r d a l l e g e d t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t s

, S u p e r i o r C o u r t J u d g e s S t e p h e n P e t r i l l o a n d

C h r i s t o p h e r R o m a n y s h y n

, a n d a N e w J e r s e y C o u r t e m p l o y e e

, M i c h a e l C o b b

, v i o l a t e d h i s

c i v i l r i g h t s i n t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s

. A m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s

, C l i f f o r d m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e

S u p e r i o r C o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i m b e c a u s e h e i s a “ s o v e r e i g n c i t i z e n

. ” 1 H e a l s o

c l a i m e d t h a t h i s d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d w h e n h i s r e q u e s t s

f o r d i s c o v e r y

, a c h a n g e o f v e n u e

, a n d a j u r y t r i a l w e r e d e n i e d

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d

t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t w i t h p r e j u d i c e

,

d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t C l i f

f o r d f a i l e d t o s t a t e a p l a u s i b l e c l a i m t o r e l i e f a n d t h a t t h e j u d g e s

w e r e i m m u n e f

r o m s u i t

. T h i s a p p e a l e n s u e d

.

I I

.

We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 12 91. We exercise plenary re view over

the District Court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), W. Penn Alleghe ny Health Sys., Inc.

v. UPMC , 627 F.3d 85, 97 (3d Cir. 2010), and ask whether the compla i nt contained

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘ state a claim to relief tha t is plausibl e on

1 See United States v. Benabe , 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) ( explaining tha t a

person claiming to be a “ sovereign citi zen ” is “ not be yond the jurisdiction of the c ourts

, ”

and that “ [t]hese theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented ” ).3

its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (q uoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

I I I

.

Th e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t C l i f f o r d f a i l e d t o s t a t e a n y p l a u s i b l e

c l a i m t o r e l i e f

. A s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

, C l i f f o r d ’ s c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n e d f e w

a l l e g a t i o n s regardi ng t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e f a m i l y c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s

, l e t

a l o n e s u f f i c i e n t a l l e g a t i o n s t o r a i s e a p l a u s i b l e d u e p r o c e s s o r e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m

. I n

p a r t i c u l a r

, C l i f

f o r d f a i l e d t o m a k e a n y s p e c i f

i c a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g d e f e n d a n t C o b b ’ s

p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s

. S e e Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d 1195,

1207 (3d C ir. 1988)

.

T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t C l i f

f o r d d i d s p e c i f

i c a l l y a l l e g e t h a t t h e j u d g e s e n t e r e d c e r t a i n

c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r s a n d r e l a t e d o r d e r s d e n y i n g C l i f f o r d ’ s r e q u e s t s f

o r d i s c o v e r y

, f

o r a

c h a n g e o f v e n u e

, a n d f

o r a j u r y t r i a l

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e

j u d g e s w e r e i m m u n e f

r o m s u i t

. C l i f

f o r d ’ s claim s a r e b a s e d o n a c t i o n s t a k e n b y t h e

j u d g e s i n S u p e r i o r C o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s

, and C l i f f o r d d i d n o t p l a u s i b l y a l l e g e t h a t t h e i r

a c t i o n s w e r e t a k e n i n t h e c l e a r a b s e n c e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n

. S e e Gallas v . Supreme Court of

Pa. , 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000) (holdi ng that judges are immune f rom suit unde r 4 2

U

. S

. C

. § 1983 “for monetary damages arising from their judi cial acts”) ; s e e a l s o Stump v.

Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (“A judge will not be d eprived of immunity because

the action he took was in err or, wa s done maliciously, or was in excess of his

authority [.]”)

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t C l i f f or d r a i s e d c l a i m s f

o r d e c l a r a t o r y o r i n

j u n c t i v e r e l i e f4

r e l a t e d t o t h e e n f

o r c e m e n t o f v a r i o u s s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s a n d

c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s

, t h e j u d g e s a r e n o t p r o p e r d e f e n d a n t s

, a s C l i f

f o r d ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s m a k e c l e a r

t h a t t h e j u d g e s w e r e a c t i n g i n a n a d j u d i c a t o r y c a p a c i t y

. S e e Allen v. DeBello , 86 1 F.3d

433, 442 (3d Cir. 2017)

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

.