2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-11-2014

Sam James, Jr. v. Stuart Rapner

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 12-3296

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Sam James, Jr. v. Stuart Rapner" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 167.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Court 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 appellant Sam H. James, Jr., appeals from the District Court’s order 

dismissing his 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 Supreme 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 discrimination, 

and the repeated failure to appoint counsel. The District Court dismissed James’ 

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 any future filings

related to the matter be transmitted to chambers 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) contacting 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 motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e). The motion was denied and James timely appealed. 

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 reconsideration 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 dismissed the complaint because James failed to state 

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). Judges 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 injunction, 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 which abuses the judicial process.”). Accordingly, we will affirm the District 

Court’s judgment. James’ motions for recusal are denied.