2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-3-2013

Burl Howell v. Robert Young

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1281

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

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 2013 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

"Burl Howell v. Robert Young" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 590.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/590
1

BLD-284 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1281

___________

BURL ANDERSON HOWELL,

Appellant

v.

JUDGE ROBERT B. YOUNG, Kent County Superior Court, acting in his official 

capacity; JUSTICE HENRY DUPONT RIDGLEY, Kent County Superior Court 

President, in his official capacity; JUSTICE JACK B. JACOBS, Vice Chancellor of 

Sussex Co. Ct. of Chancery, in his official capacity; COMMISSIONER ANDREA 

MAYBEE FREUD, Commissioner of Kent County Superior Court, in her official 

capacity; MARGARET ANN WARREN, citizen of Delaware; BROWN SHEILS & O' 

BRIEN, corporation of Delaware; H. CUBBAGE. BROWN, JR., attorney of Delaware; 

WILLIAM M. CHASANOV, attorney of Delaware

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil No. 12-cv-01112)

District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 13, 2013

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 3, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Burl Anderson Howell, appeals from the United States District Court 

for the District of Delaware‟s order dismissing his civil complaint. For principally the 

reasons given in the District Court‟s Memorandum, we will summarily affirm. See 3d 

Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

In 1994 Howell pleaded guilty and was convicted of second-degree forgery and 

second-degree perjury arising out of his forgery of his deceased brother‟s will. See In re 

Petition of Howell, No. 126, 2007, 2007 WL 1114123 (Del. Apr. 16, 2007). Howell was 

ultimately ordered to pay restitution directly to a claimant of his brother‟s estate, who is a 

defendant in this case.1 In 2012, Howell, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 

complaint, which he later amended, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

Delaware state law. Howell named as defendants three judges in the Delaware state 

courts, a Delaware state court commissioner, the claimant of his deceased brother‟s 

estate, two of the claimant‟s attorneys, and a law firm where one of the attorneys was 

employed. Generally, Howell alleged that the defendants, all connected to the litigation 

that resulted in the order of restitution, violated Howell‟s constitutional rights, and that 

Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4106, which governs the imposition of restitution in certain 

 

1

The District Court‟s January 14, 2013 Memorandum contains a comprehensive 

discussion of the relevant background. See Howell v. Young, No. 12-1112, 2013 WL 

164859, at *1-2 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2013).
3

criminal cases, was unconstitutional. Howell also raised state-law claims. Howell sought 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The 

District Court held that the federal claims were frivolous and dismissed the complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The District Court also concluded that 

amendment of the complaint would be futile and did not exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Howell‟s state law claims. 

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District 

Court‟s sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim is plenary, 

and “we must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable 

inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 

2000) (quoting Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We may summarily affirm if the appeal does not present a substantial question, 

and may do so on any basis supported by the record. Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 

247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

III.

The District Court properly dismissed Howell‟s claims against defendants Judge 

Robert B. Young, Justice Henry duPont Ridgley, Justice Jack B. Ross, and Commissioner 

Andrea Maybee Freud. Howell‟s claims against these defendants related to actions taken 

in their judicial capacities. As judicial officers they are entitled to absolute judicial 
4

immunity from claims for damages.

2

 Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); 10 Del. 

Code Ann. tit. 10, §§ 1315-1316 (establishing that Commissioners in the Delaware state 

court system are judicial officers). Although “immunity, whether qualified or absolute, is 

an affirmative defense which must be affirmatively pleaded,” Kennedy v. City of 

Cleveland, 797 F.2d 297, 300 (6th Cir. 1986), the District Court did not err in raising it 

sua sponte because the defect was clear from the face of Howell‟s complaint. Ray v. 

Kertes, 285 F.3d 287, 296 (3d Cir. 2002).

Howell requested injunctive relief in the form of orders variously prohibiting the 

judicial defendants from employing certain constructions and applications of section 

4106. Pursuant to § 1983, when an action is brought against a judicial officer acting in 

their official capacity, injunctive relief is prohibited “unless a declaratory decree was 

violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Azubuko v. Royal, 

443 F.3d 302, 303-04 (3d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Howell has neither alleged nor 

established such a basis for relief. Consequently, injunctive relief is statutorily 

prohibited. 

The District Court properly dismissed Howell‟s claim that section 4106 was 

unconstitutionally applied by the Delaware Superior Court. Section 4106 provides that 

an individual convicted of depriving another of property shall be liable “to each victim of 

 

2 We agree with the District Court‟s conclusion that Howell failed to set forth facts 

demonstrating that the defendants acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. See Stump v. 

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978).
5

the offense” for the value of the property lost. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4106. Howell 

alleged that section 4106 did not permit the restitution payment to be made directly to the 

claimant, who was not a victim of the offense. Despite Howell‟s argument to the 

contrary, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars review of this claim. The Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine deprives federal district courts of jurisdiction “over suits that are essentially 

appeals from state-court judgments.” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild 

LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when four 

requirements are met: “(1) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff 

„complain[s] of injuries caused by [the] state-court judgments‟; (3) those judgments were 

rendered before the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the district court 

to review and reject the state judgments.” Id. at 166 (alterations in original) (quoting 

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). Howell‟s asapplied challenge satisfies the four Rooker-Feldman doctrine requirements. Therefore, 

review of the state court‟s application of section 4106 is barred. See id.

To the extent that Howell asserts a facial attack on section 4106, arguing that the 

statute as written violates constitutional due process, he lacks standing.3 See Mosby v. 

Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 933-34 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that plaintiff lacked standing to 

 

3 Although the District Court did not address the issue of standing, “every federal 

appellate court has a special obligation to „satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, 

but also that of the lower courts.‟” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 

43, 73 (1997) (quoting Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)). 
6

bring facial challenge when as-applied challenge was barred by the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine).

We agree with the District Court‟s conclusion that, for purposes of § 1983, the 

remaining defendants are not state actors and did not act under color of state law. See 42 

U.S.C. § 1983; Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995) (“[T]here 

is no liability under § 1983 for those not acting under color of law.”); Steward v. Meeker, 

459 F.2d 669, 670 (3d Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (holding that private counsel does not act 

under color of state law). Consequently, Howell failed to state a claim against the 

defendants who were not judicial officers. Because the defects in Howell‟s complaint

were incurable, the District Court did not abuse its discretion concluding that amendment 

would have been futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Finally, we 

conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Howell‟s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 

Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995).

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented by this appeal. 

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. 

LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.