2015 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 A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-22-2015 

# J a nice H a a ge nse n v

. M ich a el W he r r y

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_2015

Thi s J uly 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 A

ppe 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 2015 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

" J a nic e H a a g e n s e n v

. M ich a e l W he r r y " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 784. 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_2015/784NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 14

- 4301

_____________ JANICE S. HAAGENSEN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Myrtle Shelburne Ha agensen,

Appellant v. MICHAEL J. WHERRY, Visiting Judge, Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, in his official and individual capacities; BETTY MAY REED; EDWARD ABERSOLD; ANNIE AND RUFUS K. HERSHBER GER; RICHARD RAPONE, Tax Collector of Lawrence County; J.R HARDESTER, Director of Assessments of Lawrence County; KAREN MAGNONE, Property Tax Collector of North Beaver Township, in an individual and official capacity On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 2

- 14

- cv
- 00495 District Judge: The Honorable Arthur J. Schwab Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

July 13, 2015
Befo re: SMITH, GREENAWAY, JR., and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

. (Filed: July 22, 2015 )

_____________________ OPINION *

_____________________ SMITH, Circuit Judge.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Appellant Janice Haagensen is the personal representative of th e estate of her mother, Myrtle Haagensen (collectively referred to as Haagensen) , who owned approximately 70 acres in Lawrence County , Pennsylvania. The southern border of Haagensen’s land abut ted parcel s of land owned separately by Edward Abersold and
Be tty Ma y Reed. Reed accessed her land by a driveway that traveled in the vicinity of
this border. The driveway also happened to be in the proximity of the municipal boundary line between North Beaver Township on which the Haagensen land was
situated and L ittle Beaver Township where the Abersold and Reed parcels were located. Haagensen filed a quiet title action in state court, alleging that the driveway was in North Beaver Township on Haagensen’s l and. Abersold, Reed, and Reed’s successors Annie
and Rufu s K. Hershberger , who purchased R eed’s farm during the pendency of the quiet title action, asserted the driveway was on their land.
O n April 13, 2011, Judge Michael Wherry issued a decision in favor of Abersold , Reed, and the Hershbergers. 1 Judge Wherr y concluded th at Haagensen had failed to
establish a “right to i mm ediate exclusive possession ” of the driveway as required to prevail in a quiet title action. A135. Haagensen appealed , but the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court dismissed the appeal as unti mely. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Haagensen’ s petition for allowance of appeal.

1 According to a suggestion of death filed on June 4, 2015, Ju dge Wherry died on or about Jan uary 29, 2015

. Because no estate ha s yet to be opened , there is no party t o3

On April 16, 2014, Haagensen filed a complaint in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging civil rights violations. She sued Reed, her successors the Hershbergers, and Abersold ( collectively the Neighbor Defendants ) , and Judge Wherry. In addition, Haagensen sued the Tax Collector of Lawrence County, the Director of Assessments of Lawrence County and the Property Tax Collec tor for North Beaver Township ( collectively the Tax Defendants ) . All of the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Magistrate Judge prepared a report, recommending the dismissal of the complaint based on the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine

. 2
Add itionally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that, if the suit was not barred under
Rooker

- Feldman , judicial immunity barred the claim against Judge Wherry. T he Magistrate Judge concluded that the action also was barred by the statute of limitation s
. The Di strict Court adopted the report and recommendation. A timely notice of appeal was filed after the District Court denied a timely motion for reconsideration. 3 We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 4 The Rooker

- Feldman doctrine bars Haagense n’s claims against the Neighbor D efendants. 5 See Great W. Mining &

substitute and we will cont inue to refer to Judge Wherry

. Moreover, because we will affirm the dismissal of all claims, the motion to amend the caption is moot. 2 The doctrine d raws its name from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 3 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdic tio n under 28 U.S.C. § 1 291. We exercise plenary review of the District Court’s application of the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine

. Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P. , 449 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2006). We also exercise “ plenary review over an order granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. ” Mariotti v. Mariotti Bldg. Prods. Inc. , 714 F.3d 761, 765 (3d Cir. 2013)

. 4 We reject Haagensen’s contention that the District Court erred by considering the state court opinion and judgment. As t he Magistrate Judge explained , consideration o f these4

Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP , 615 F.3d 159, 166 (3d Cir. 2010) (breaking down the holding of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280 (2005)). The
fact ual allegati ons strongly su pport the conclusion that the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine also bars the claims against Judge Wherry . We need not decide that q uestion, however, as Judge Wherry is absolutely immune from suit. Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa

. , 211 F.3d 760, 768

- 6 9 (3d Cir. 2000).
As to the Tax Defendants, we are not convinced that Rooker

- Feldman bars the claims against them. Nonetheless, we may affirm for any reason supported by the record.
Nicini v. Morra , 212 F.3d 798, 8 05 (3d Cir. 2000). The complaint doe s not allege any
conduct that would demonstrate that the Tax Defendants deprived Haagensen of her constitutional rights. Thus, we conclude that the claims against the Tax Defendants were appropriately dismissed because they did not assert a claim on which relief may be granted. See Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (instructing that a “defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs”). For the above reasons, we will affirm the judgment of th e District Court.

documents was permissible because they were items referred to in the Complaint, copies of which were attached for convenience to the motion. A82. See P ension Trust Fund for Operating Eng ’ rs v. Mortg. Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., 730 F .3d 263, 271 (3d Cir. 2013) ; see also Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman , 38 F.3d 1380, 138 4 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994)

. 5 The District Court also concluded that the claims against Judge Wherry and the Tax Defendants we re barred by Rooker

- Feldman

. The M agistrate Judge concluded that Haagensen’s claims we re barred because they we re “‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court action.” A85. We reiterate our observation in Great Western Mining that in5

Exxon Mobil the Supreme Court did not rely on th e “inextricably intertwined” formulation and we again caution against employing that analysis . 615 F.3d at 16 8

- 6 9.