2010 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 Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-5-2010 

# M ich a el S he monsky v

. J ohn Thom a s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-2927

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_2010

Thi s de c i sion 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 Appe 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 2010 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

" M ich a e l S he mon sk

y v . J o hn Thom as " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 283. 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_2010/283

### BLD-023 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2927

___________ MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY, Debtor, Appellant

v. JOHN J. THOMAS, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri ct of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-02882) District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circu it LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 28, 2010 Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY JR., Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 5, 2010)

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Michael Shemonsky appeals pro se from th e United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s June 21 , 2010 order. We w ill summarily affirm. In June 2010, Shemonsky filed a compla int against a United States Bankruptcy

### Court Judge as well as an application to proc eed in forma pauperis. In his complaint, Shemonsky sought over $5 billion dollars in damages for th e 1990 “illegal theft of [his] savings and loan by the office of thrift superv ision.” The complaint, which states that the bases for federal jurisdiction are “Article IV of the U.S. Constitu tion [and the] Fifth Amendment,” makes no reference Judge Thomas , the defendant. On June 21, 2010, the district court entered an order that granted Shemonsky’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The district court explained that, under the doctrine of judicial immunity , Judge Thomas is absolutely immune from civil rights lawsuits that seekmoney damages for actions performed in a judicial capacity. See Mireless v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Ad ditionally, the district court stated that Shemonsky’s action, which was filed twenty years after the alleged events in question occurred, was time-barred because federal civil rights actions are subject to Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitation for person al injury actions. See Wallace v. Kato , 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007); 42 Pa. Cons . Stat. Ann. § 5524. This appeal followed. 1 

### We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1291 and our review of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of Shemonsky’s complaint is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We may take summary action when we

1 

### After Shemonsky filed his notice of a ppeal from the June 21, 2010 order, he moved for reconsideration of that order. He attached documents from some of his previous cases (of which there are many), cl aiming that they supported his allegations regarding a “conspiracy to [sic] entrapment for financial gain.” The district court denied the motion, stating that Shemonsky did not address the bases for the dismissal of his complaint. Shemonsky did no t appeal from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 23 

### conclude that an appeal presents no “subs tantial question.” 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. After granting a litigant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court is required to dismiss the complaint if it fail s to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For the reasons given by the district court, we agree that Shemonsky’s complain t failed to state a claim. We have also held that a district c ourt should not dismiss a pro se complaint without allowing the plaintiff leave to amend unless amendmen t would be inequitable or futile. See Alston v. Parker , 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). Although the districtcourt did not explicitly state that amendment of the comp laint would be futile, it is clea r that this was the district court’s intent. Further, Shemonsky has had, and has taken, the opportunity to respond to the district court’s order, but has revealed no fl aw in the dismissal of his complaint. We will therefore summarily affirm the judgment of the district court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.