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 6-10-2005 

# S p an v . F l ahe r ty 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 . 04-2769

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 authori 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 p an v . Fl ahe r ty " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1032. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1032NOT 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 . 04- 2769

________________ T E RE NC E J . S P AN, A ppel l ant

v. H O N O R A B L E J O H N P . F L A H E R T Y ; H O N O R A B L E S T E P H E N A . Z A P P A L A , S R .; HO NO RA BLE RA LPH J . CA PP Y; HO NO RA BLE RO NA LD D . CA STI LLE; HO NO RA BLE RU SS ELL M . NI GR O; HO NO RA BLE SAN DR A SCH ULTZ

NE WM AN; HONOR AB L E T HOMAS G. S AYL 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 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 v. N o. 03- cv- 01264) D i s tr i ctJ udge: G aryL . L anca s t er

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

M ay18, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , SM I T H and B E C K E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 10, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM T he appe l l ant , T er ence Span, appea l s pr o s e fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai nt . Fort he r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I n 1998, Span fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a al l egi ng thatJ ack M annhei m er , a ps y chi atr i s t , and J eff er s on H os pi t al tr e a t e d h i m f

o rme n t a l i l l n e s s wi th o u th i s c o n s e n t . S e e S p a n v . M a n n h e i me r , e ta l . , W. D. P a. C iv. N o . 9 8 -cv -00 6 1 9 . O n S ep tem b er 2 1 , 1 9 9 8 , the D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed S p an ’s c o m p lain t f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim . S p a n d id n o t ap p e a l. S p a n th e n f iled a c o m p lain t in the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A l l eghenyC ounty , agai n nami ng M annhei m erand J eff er s on H os pi t al as defe ndant s . Span’ s compl ai ntw as di s m i s s ed on the gr ounds of r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . T he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our taff i r m ed, and the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed Span’ s pet i t i on foral l ow ance of appe al on Sept ember4, 2001. O n A u g u s t 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 , S p a n f ile d th e u n d e rl y in g c o m p la in t p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 in th e D istric t 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. In h is c o m p lain t, S pan al l eged that the n am ed d efen dan t s, al l P enn sy l van i a S up rem e C ou rtJust i ces, vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tand Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s w hen theydeni ed hi s pet i t i on for a llo w a n c e o f

a p p e a l w ith o u t f

irst o rd e rin g a c o p yo f

th e re c o rd f

ro m th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt. S p a n so u g h t co m p e n sa to rya n d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. T h e d e f e n d a n ts3

m oved t o di s m i s s Span’ s compl ai ntpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , ar gui ng, i nt er al i a, thattheyw er e ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni ty . T he M agi s tr at e J udge as s i gned t o the ca s e agr eed w i th the def endant s , and r ecomm ended thatSpan’ s compl ai ntbe di s m i s s ed. O verSpan’ s obj ect i ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed hi s compl ai ntbyor der ent er ed on J une 1, 2004. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. O u r sta n d a rd o f

re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) is plenary . S ee G al l o v . C i tyof P hil adelphi a, 16 1 F . 3d 21 7, 22 1 (3d C i r. 19 98 ). “W e m ust det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the pl eadi ngs , the pl ai nt i ff[ ] m aybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef, and w e mustacc eptas true the fa ctual al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntand al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s thatcan be dr aw n ther efr om . ” N ami v. Fauver , 82 F. 3d 63, 65 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . M or eover , as Span fi l ed hi s compl ai ntpr o s e, w e mustl i ber al l ycons t rue hi s pl eadi ngs and appl ythe appl i cabl e l aw , i rr es pect i ve of w hetherhe has m ent i oned i tby n am e. S ee D luh o s v . S tr asb erg , 3 2 1 F . 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I ti s a w el l - es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl e thatj udges ar e abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om s ui tfor damages under§ 1983 w hen theyacti n a j udi ci al capa ci ty . “A j udge w i l l notbe depr i ved o f im m u n ityb e c a u se th e a c tio n h e to o k w a s in e rro r, w a s d o n e m a licio u sly , o r w a s in exce s s of hi s author i ty ; r ather , he w i l l be s ubj ectt o l i abi l i tyonl yw hen he ha s act ed i n the

‘ cl earabs ence of al l j ur i s di ct i on. ’ ” Stum p v. Spar km an, 435 U . S. 349, 356- 57 ( 1978) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o G al l as v. Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a, 211 F. 3d 760, 768- 69 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . H er e, Span’ s compl ai ntcons i s t s ent i r el yof al l egat i ons r egar di ng t heact i ons t aken bythe def endant s i n thei rj udi ci al capa ci ty . Span m akes no al l egat i ons t hat w o u ld su p p o rt a d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts a c ted in th e c o m p lete a b se n c e o f a ll juri sd ict ion . A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d ism issi n g S p an ’s c o m p lain t.