CLD
- 010 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 3306

___________ ASSEM A. ABULKHAIR , Appellant

v. NED M. ROSENBERG

____________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Cou rt for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 11

- cv - 03372 ) District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 14, 2011
Be fore: RENDELL, HARDIMAN AND ROTH , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : January 10, 2012 )

_________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_________ PER CURIAM Assem Abulkhair, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from an order of the District Court that dismis sed his civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We will affirm.2 As we write primarily for the parties, we will not recite the facts of the case, which

were aptly summarized by the District Court in its opinion below

. See Abulkhair v. Rosenbe rg , No. 11

- 3372 , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86683 , at *1

– 2 (D.N.J. Aug. 5, 2011)

. To the extent that Abulkhair attempted to sue a state

- court judge for money damages for
acts the judge performed in his judicial capacity , we agree with the District Court that t he suit is barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco , 502
U.S. 9 , 9 (1991) (per curiam) (“[G] enerally, a judge is immune from a suit for money damages .”). Abulkhair’s “allegations of bad faith [and] malice” cannot overcome this immunity. Id. at 11. Nor is there any indication that Judge Rosenberg exposed himself to suit by acting “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 12 (citing Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) ); Figueroa v. Blackburn , 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 2000)

. Abulkhair also requested injunctive relief ; specifically, he asked the District Court
to: Issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendant Ned M. Rosenberg, or anyone acting in concert with him, from engaging in any actions, intended for the same purpose, or likely to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or prejudicial to any litigants, and compel Judge Rosenberg to disclose his disqualification information to all of the parties appearing before him prior to any heari ng or trial, and to disqu alify or recus e himself from all of Abulkhair’ s actions before him

. Compl. 17. Although we have observed that “ a bsolute judicial immunity extends only to claims for damages , ” Larsen v. Senate of the Commonwealth , 152 F.3d 240, 249 (3d Cir. 1998) , amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have statutorily restricted “ action [s] brought3 against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’ s judicial capacity ,” preventing injunctive relief “ unless a declaratory decree was viola ted or declaratory relief was unavailable .” Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104

- 317, 110 Stat. 3847 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1996)) ; see also Azubuko v. Royal , 443 F.3d 302, 30 3

– 04 (3d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 1

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District
Court. Murray v. Bledsoe , No. 10

- 4397, 650 F.3d 246 , 2011 U .S. App. LEXIS 11702, at *3 (3d Cir. June 10, 2011); see also Third Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6

. There fore, “[b] ecause [ Abulkhair ] has not alleged that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief is unavailable, and because the injunctive relief sought

. . . does not address the actions of Judge [Rosenberg] other than in his judicial capac ity, his claim for injunctive relief is barred ” by this statutory judicial immunity. Az u buko , 443 F.3d at 304.

1 The cases Abulkhair cites in his summary

- action response predate this 1996 amendment; contrary to his assertions, § 1983 now does create exceptions for jud ges.