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 8-17-2005 

# E arnes t v . Ling 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 . 04-4745

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_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 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 " Earne s t v . L in g " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 689. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/689AP S - 3 3 0 NOT 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- 4745 GR EG W . EAR NEST, A ppel l ant

v. J UDGE T HOMAS S . L I NG, C our tof C om m on Pl eas

____________________________________ 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. 04 -cv- 00 24 3J) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B)

A ugus t4, 2005 Be f o r e : SLOV I TER, FUEN TES AND NY GA AR D, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: A ugus t17, 2005 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t G re g E a rn e st a p p e a ls f ro m th e g ra n t o f

th e D e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to d is m is s th e c o m p la in t a g a in s t P e n n s y lv a n ia C o u rt o f C o m m o n P le a s J u d g e T h o m a s L in g . T h e a p p e a l is f

ri v o lo u s , a n d w e w ill d is m is s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( i) . O n O ct ober10, 2004, E arnes tfi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t . T heW e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew 1 overt he gr antof a mot i on t o di s m i s s . See Lore nz v. C SX C orp. , 1 F. 3d 1406, 1411 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). 2 c o m p lain t co n sis ts o f

o n e d o c u m e n t li stin g se v e ra l ca u se s o f a c tio n a n d th re e se p a ra te document s ent i t l ed “c om pl ai nt , ” ea ch l i s t i ng num er ous i ndi vi dual s and governm ent enti t i es. T he D i stri ctC ou rtdo cketed t he co m plai nt agai nston l yJudg e L i ng . E arnest cl ai m s J udge Li ng vi ol at ed numer ous cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w i t h r es pectt o hi s cas e i n t he B ed fo rd C o u n tyC o u rto f C o m m o n P leas. T h e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e D ef en d an t’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s w i t h pr ej udi ce. E arnes tappea l s and fi l ed a mot i on t o compel d i s c o v e r y. 1 E arnes t ’ s compl ai nti s uni nt el l i gi bl e and f ai l s t o pr ovi de anydet ai l s r egar di ng w hat i nj ur i es he al l egedl ys us t ai ned orw hatuncons t i tut i onal act i ons ar e al l eged t o have o c c u rre d . T o th e e x ten t h e se e k s f e d e ra l re v iew o v e r th e ju d g m e n t o f a sta te c o u rt, E arnes ti s barr ed byt he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. See Exxon M obi l e C orp. v. Saudi B as i c I ndus . C orp. , 125 S. C t . 1517 ( 2005) ; D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a C our tof A ppeal s v. F e ld m a n , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 6 2 (1 9 8 3 ); R o o k e r v . F id e lity T ru s t C o ., 2 6 3 U .S . 4 1 3 (1 9 2 3 ). T o the e x tent E arn est att em p ts t o raise claim s u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , w h ich a re noti nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned w i t h s t at e courtj udgm ent s , hi s cl ai m s ar e barr ed byj udi ci al i m m uni t y . See Fi guer oa v. B l ackburn, 208 F. 3d 435, 440 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . A l t hough E arnes tar gues t hatJ udge Li ng w as w i t houtj ur i s di ct i on t o act , w hi ch exc ept s the pr ot ect i on of j udi ci al i m m uni t y , s ee i d. , E arnes tpr ovi des no coher entar gum entorany3

sta tem e n t o f

f a c ts f ro m w h ich w e c a n a ss e ss th e a rg u m e n t. F in a lly , E a rn e st f

iled a d o c u m e n t in th is C o u rt e n tit led “ P e tit io n f o r M o tio n to C om pel D i s covery . ” H e r eques t s t hatthi s C our tdockethi s appea l w i t h r es pectt o t he ot hernamed D efe ndant s . U pon cl os eri ns pect i on i tappea r s E arnes ts eeks t o appea l the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o addr es s t he cl ai m s r el at i ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es and the C om m onw eal t h, notactual l yobt ai n di s covery . W e cons t rue a pr o s e l i t i gant ’ s pl eadi ngs lib e ra lly , se e D lu h o s v . S tas b e rg , 3 2 1 F .3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), an d c o n stru e h is m o tio n a s a lette r in su p p o rt o f h is n o tice o f

a p p e a l. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in fai l i ng t o cons i dert hes e part i es . Fi r s t , i tdoes notappea rthatE arnes tr eques t ed a s um m ons ors erved pr oces s on anyof the otherpot ent i al defe ndant s . See gene r al l yFed. R . C iv . P . 4 . S e c o n d , h is c o m p la in t f a ils to c le a rl yid e n tif

yw h ic h p a rt ie s h e s e e k s to s u e . F in a lly, h e a lle g e s n o c o h e re n t c la im a g a in s t a n yo th e r p o te n tia l d e f e n d a n t. F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, t he ap peal i s fr i vo l ou s. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l dis m i ss.