2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-11-2014 

# S a m J a mes, J r

. v . S tua r t R a pne r
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t 12-3296

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S a m J a me s, J r

. v . S tua r t R a pne r " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 167. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/167

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 3296

___________ SAM H. JAMES , JR. , Appellant

v. STUART RAPNER, Chief Justice, Individually and in professional capacity; THOMAS ZAMPINO, Superior Co urt Judge, Individually and in professional capacity

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 11

- cv - 06249 ) District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 2, 2013 Before: SMITH, GARTH and ROTH , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : February 11, 2014 )

___________

OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM
Pro se a ppellant Sam H. James, Jr., appeals fr om the District Court’s order dismiss ing h is complaint and denying a subsequent motion for reconsideration. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

### 2 James filed a complaint against Stuart Rapner, Chief Justice of the Suprem e Court of New Jersey, and Thomas Zampino, a New Jersey Superior Court judge, in both their individual and official capacities, alleging “willful and intentional malfeasance” in violation of his constitutional rights through malicious prosecution, racial d iscrimination, and the repeated failure to appoint counsel. The District Court dismissed J ames’ complaint both as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii) . In addition, the Court sua sponte ordered that a ny future filings related to the matter be transmitted to chamb ers for review prior to filing, and enjoined James from (1) appearing in person in the Clerk’s Office or any courtroom “ in the Newark vicinage of the United States District Court ,” or (2) conta cting Chambers or the Clerk’s Office except by mail. James filed a “Motion for a New Trial” which the District Court properly construed as a timely m otion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) . The motion was denied and James timely appea led. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, see Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000), and review an order denying a motion reconside r ation for abuse of discretion, see Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). The District Court properly dism issed the complaint because James failed to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Se e Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). J udges are absolutely immune from suit for actions performed in their judicial

### 3 capacity , and there are no discernible allegations against the judges in their individual capacities. See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349 , 355

- 56 (1978). We note that James does not challenge on appeal the District Court’s filing restrictions or injun ction, nor would we find error with them. See generally Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32,
44

- 45 (1991) ( noting that courts have the “ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct whic h abuses the judicial process.” ). Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. James’ motion s for recusal are denied.