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 8-23-2005 

# M al ari k v . C t C ommon P le a s 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 . 05-1069

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 " M al ar i k v . C t C ommon P le as " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 663. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/663I tappea r s t hatt he pr opers pel l i ng of the name forthi s part yi s K uns el m an. 1 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 . 05- 1069

________________ J AM E S M . M AL AR I K, A ppel l ant

v. CO UR T OF CO M M ON P L E AS OF BE AVE R C OUNT Y, P E NNS YL VANI A; J U D G E G EO RG E J A M ES; J U D G E C . G U S K W I D I S; J UDGE RO BE RT E . KUNZ E L NAR 1

____________________________________ 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- 01776) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Thom as M . H ar di m an

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t17, 2005 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t23, 2 005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM

J ames M . M al ar i k, pr o s e, appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng w i t h pr ej udi ce hi s compl ai nt fi l ed pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983. I n O ct ober2004, M al ar i k al l egedl yfi l ed var i ous m ot i ons i n w hatappea rt o have b e e n p e rs o n a l in

ju ry c a s e s h e h a d p e n d in g in th e B e a v e r C o u n ty C o u rt o f C o m m o n P le a s . B efor e J udge G eor ge J ames, M al ar i k fi l ed tw o m ot i ons , w hi ch J udge C . G us K w i di s l at er d e n ie d . M a la ri k a ls o a lle g e d ly f ile d f iv e m o tio n s b e f

o re J u d g e R o b e rt E . K u n s e lm a n . J udge K uns el m an deni ed al l of the mot i ons . M al ar i k t hen fi l ed a c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o § 1 9 8 3 c laim in g th a t th e ju d g e s’ a c tio n s in d ism iss in g h is m o tio n s v io late d h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . H e named t he thr ee j udges and the C our tof C om m on Pl eas as defe ndant s . Forr el i ef M al ar i k s oughtm onet arydamages as w el l as decl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef f

or ci ng t hats t at e courtt o m odi fyi t s deci s i ons . T he def endant s m oved f o r d ism iss a l f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim o n th e b a se s th a t th e ju d g e s w e re e n tit led to i m m uni t y , t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas w as ent i t l ed t o s over ei gn i m m uni t yand the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne barr ed r evi ew of the s t at e court ’ s deci s i ons r egar di ng the m oti on s. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed M al ar i k’ s compl ai ntas t o t he j udges on t he bas i s of ju d icia l im m u n ity , as th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s h a d ju risd ictio n o v e r M a lar ik , an d a ll3

de ni a l s of

mot i on s w e r e do ne i n the i rj ud i c i a l c a pa c i t y . Se e Stump v. Spa r kman , 43 5 U. S. 3 4 9 , 3 5 7 (19 7 8 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtfu rth er c o n clud ed that itco u ld n o t gran t dec laratory ori nj unct i ve r el i ef be caus e thatw oul d i nher ent l yr equi r e r evi ew of the dec i s i ons of the s t at e courti n an appe l l at e ca paci t y , w hi ch i s forbi dden underthe R ooker - Fel dm an d o c trin e . F in a lly , as to th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s, th e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t it w as ent i t l ed t o s over ei gn i m m uni t yand, i n anyevent , w as nota per s on forpurpos es of a § 1983 act i on. B as ed on the above , t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i ons and di s m i s s ed M al ar i k’ s compl ai ntw i t h pr ej udi ce. M al ar i k appea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r re v iew o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l f o r f a ilu re to s t at e a c l ai m i s pl enary . See Por tA uth. of N . Y . & N . J . v. A r cadi an C orp. , 189 F. 3d 305, 3 1 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Fort he r eas ons di s cus s ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s m emora ndum opi ni on and su m m a riz e d a b o v e , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t M a lar ik f a iled to sta te a v iab le cl ai m w i t h r es pectt o al l defe ndant s . T he D i s t r i ctC our t , ther efor e, pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed M a la ri k ’s c o m p la in t. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d ism issi n g M alarik’s compl ai ntw i t h pr ej udi ce.