2010 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 9-23-2010 

# J ohn T auro v . M ax B a e r 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 . 09-4745

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_2010

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 2010 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 " J o hn T aur o v . M ax B a e r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 562. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/562NOT 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. 09- 4745

___________ J OHN J . T AUR O, A ppel l ant

v. M A X B A E R ; K A T H L E E N R . M U L L IG A N ; JO A N O R IE -M E L V IN ;

Y etun nam ed em ploy ees of the D om est i c R el at i on s S e c tio n o f

F a m ilyD iv isio n , ind iv id u a lly

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 01545) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J o yF lo w e rs C o n ti

________________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember22, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , J O R D A N and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember23, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. Jo h n J. T au ro, pro ce ed ing p ro se , ap p ea ls from the o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rt g r a n t i n g t h e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n s t o d i s mi s s . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m.M ax B aerw as an admi ni s t r at i ve j udge of the Fami l yD i vi s i on of the A l l egheny 1 C ount yC our tfr om 1993 unt i l 2003 w hen he be came a j us t i ce of the Supr eme C our tof P e n n s y lv a n ia . J oan O r i e M el vi n s erved as a j udge on the A l l eghenyC ount yC our tof C om m on 2 Pl eas fr om 1990 t o 1997 w hen s he w as el ect ed t o t he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our t . She i s now a j us t i ce of

t he Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a. K athl een R. M ul l i gan has s erved as a j udge of the A l l eghenyC ount yC our tof 3 C om m on Pl eas s i nce 1993, and s erved as the A dm i ni s t r at i ve J udge of the Fami l yD i vi s i on b e tw e e n A p ri l 1 9 9 9 a n d A p ri l 2 0 0 2 . 2 I. I n O ct ober2008, T aur o fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tal l egi ng t hatt he def endant s “ac t ed cont i nuous l ys i nce 1993, unt i l M ar ch 20 07 ” t o v i olat e his F i ft h an d F ou rt eenth A m end m ent r i gh t s. H i s cl ai m s appea r t o ari se fr om or der s r el at i ng t o hi s fai l ur e t o paychi l d s uppor t . T aur o cl ai m ed thatJ us t i ce Baer 1 appoi nt ed the A l l eghenyC ount ySol i ci t oras a Ti t l e I V - D at t orney , i n vi ol at i on of P e n n sy lv a n ia la w a n d d u e p ro c e ss . H e a lso a lleg e d th a t Ju stic e B a e r u n law f u lly “r econs i der ed and ove r rul ed” a n or derappoi nt i ng T aur o as pr i m aryphy s i cal cus t odi an of h is c h ild , res u lti n g in a “ n u lli ty ,” a n d th a t Ju stic e B a e r iss u e d u n law f u l cr im in a l w a rra n ts agai ns thi m . T aur o cl ai m ed thatJ us t i ce O r i e M el vi n “af fi r m ed the nul l i t y ” i s s ued by 2 Just i ce B aer, and t hat J ud ge M ull i gan re- app oint ed the A l l egh enyC ou ntyS oli ci t or as a 3 T i t l e I V - D at t or ney . H e al l eges t he unnamed courtempl oy ees know i ngl ycarr i ed out u n la w f u l c o u rt o rd e rs . A s a r es ul tof the def

endant s ’ al l eged a ct i ons , T aur o cl ai m s thathe has been3

w ro n g f u llyin c a rc e ra ted a n d h a s h a d h is p ro p e rtyse ize d w ith o u t d u e p ro c e ss . H is compl ai nts oughti nj unct i ve, decl ar at ory , and compens at oryr el i ef, as w el l as puni t i ve d am ag es. T h e d ef

en d an ts fil ed m o ti o n s to d ism iss i n w h ich th eyarg u ed that T au ro’s 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 a n d th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued a s ua s pont e or dert o s how caus e on the i s s ue of w hetherthe co m p lai n t sho u ld b e d ism issed fo r l ac k o f su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n u n d er the R o o k erFel dm an doctr i ne. A ft ercons i der i ng T aur o’ s r es pons e, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe compl ai ntdue t o t he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. I n addi t i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tfound i n a leng thyfo o tno te th at, ev en if i t did h av e su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n , m o st or all o f T au ro’s c la im s w e re b a rr e d b yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s a n d th e d o c tr in e o f ju d ic ia l im m u n ity. T a u ro f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng a compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. See W hi t e- Squi r e v. U . S. Post al Ser v. , 592 F. 3d 453, 456 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( ci t i ng C N A v. U n ite d S ta te s , 5 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 )) . III . T h e D istri ct C o u rtfirstd eterm ined that itlack ed juri sd ict ion o v er T au ro’s compl ai ntundert he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, w hi ch bar s di s t r i ctcour t s fr om r evi ew i ng4

ce rt ain s tat e c o u rtac ti o n s. S ee R o o k er v . F id. T rust C o . , 2 6 3 U . S . 4 1 3 (19 2 3 ); D . C . C o u rt of A ppeal s v. Fel dm an, 460 U . S. 462 ( 1983) . T he doctr i ne w i l l bara cl ai m i n fede r al cour tw hen: “( 1) t he fe der al pl ai nt i ff l os ti n s t at e court ; ( 2) the pl ai nt i ff ‘ compl ai n[s ] of injuries ca u sed b y[th e] state-co u rtjud g m en ts’ ; ( 3 ) th o se ju d g m en ts w ere ren d ere d b ef o re t he fe der al s ui tw as fi l ed; and ( 4) t he pl ai nt i ff i s i nvi t i ng the di s t r i ctcour tt o r evi ew and r ej ectt he s t at e courtj udgm ent s . ” G r eatW es t ern M i ni ng & M i ner al C o. v. Fox R ot hs chi l d L L P, __ F. 3d __, 2010 W L 3035466, at*6 ( 3d C i r . A ug. 5, 2010) ( quot i ng E x x o n M o b il C o rp . v . S a u d i B a s ic In d u s . C o rp ., 5 4 4 U .S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (2 0 0 5 )) . In th is c a se , itis c lea r th a t th e d o c trin e ’s f o u r re q u ire m e n ts a re m e t. T a u ro lo st in s t at e court , he compl ai ns t hathe has been i nj ur ed bythe s t at e court ’ s j udgm ent s , and th o se ju d g m e n ts p re d a te th e f ili n g o f h is f e d e ra l co m p lain t. In h is re sp o n se to th e o rd e r to s how caus e, T aur o ar gued thathe w as nots eeki ng t o voi d anys t at e courtdeci s i ons , but rather w as seeki ng redr ess for dam ages an d v i olat i on s caused b ythe d efen dan t s’ admi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i ons . H ow ever , the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ynot ed thatthe compl ai ned of admi ni s t r at i ve ac t i ons form ed the bas i s of the s t at e courtj udgm ent s . T he D i s t r i ct C our tal s o r ecogni zed thathi s compl ai ntr eques t ed thatthe courtr evi ew and overturn t he s t at e courtdeci s i ons as “nul l i t [i es ] , ” and c orr ect l yconcl uded thatthi s w oul d have the ef fe ct of v o iding the s tat e c o u rtjud g m en ts. A cc o rdin g ly , w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtI n a l e n g t h yf o o t n o t e , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta l s o d e t e r mi n e d th a ta l l o f Ta u r o ’ s c l a i ms 4 w er e t i m e barr ed, and thatm os t , i f notal l , of hi s cl ai m s w er e barr ed bythe doctr i ne of j ud i ci al i m m un i t y . W e agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s analy ses and co nclusi on s. 5 t hat i tl acked j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew T auro’s cl ai m s. 4 I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.