2010 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 1-25-2010 

# C holo D ongon v

. D onn a B an ar 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 . 09-3418

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " C ho lo D on g on v

. D onn a B an ar " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2023. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2023BL D- 0 5 5 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. 09- 3418

___________ C H O L O D O N G O N , Im m ig ra n t G re e n C a rd H o ld e r, P e rm a n e n t R e s id e n t o f

H u d s o n C o u n ty, Je rs e yC ity, N .J .,

A ppel l ant v . D O N N A B A N A R , A P erm anen tR esi den tO f T he P hil i pp i nes, N ever B efore T he N . J. S up eri or C ou rtH ud son C ou nty , N or E ver E ver I n T he U nit ed S t at es; N .J. S U P E R IO R C O U R T , H u d so n C o u n ty ; M A U R E E N M A N T IN E O , P re sid in g Ju d g e ; J UDGE S E VE RI ANO L I S BO A; NE W J E RS E Y ADMI NI S T RA T I VE OF F I CE OF T HE C O U R T S ; N .J. F A M IL Y S U P P O R T , D iv isio n O f T re n to n , N e w Je rse y ; N. J . S UP E RI OR CO UR T , Ap p e l l a t e Di v i s i o n ; J UDGE J OS E P H F . L I S A, P . J . A. D.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2- 08- cv- 05331) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le F aith S . H o ch b erg

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

N ovember25, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary25, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notaddr es s A ppel l ees ’ ar gum entthatD ongon’ s compl ai nt 1 i s barr ed bythe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne and be caus e of the domest i c r el at i ons exce pt i on t o fede r al j ur i s di ct i on. 2 P E R C UR I AM C h o lo D o n g o n a p p e a ls p ro s e f ro m a D is tr ic t C o u rt o rd e r d is m is s in g h is a c tio n . F o rs u b s t a n t i a l l yth e s a me r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I n O ct ober2008, D ongon fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n w hi ch he moved fordamages and a pr ot ect i ve or deragai ns tvar i ous court s and j udges i n the s t at e of N ew J er s ey , w ho he b eli ev ed h ad d en ied h im d u e p roc ess o f law an d co m m itted f rau d ag ains t him . D o n g o n ’s cl ai m s s t em from an under l y i ng fami l ym att eri n w hi ch the s t at e courti m pos ed and aff i r m ed a c hi l d s uppor tobl i gat i on on hi m as a N ew J er s eyr es i dent . D ongon ar gued that the a cti o n s tak en b ythe s tat e c o u rt s an d jud g es v iolated h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts, w ere w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on, and r eques t ed thatthe fe der al courti nt ervene. H e al s o named D onna B a n a r, a p riv a te c iti z e n , in h is s u it. A ppel l ees fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) and ar gued that D o n g o n ’s co m p lai n t r ev ea led n o all eg ati o n s o f f ac t or l eg al th eo rythat w o u ld su p p o rt anyof the cl ai m s as s ert ed aga i ns tthe def endant s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed, fi ndi ng t hat D o n g o n ’s c laim s f

o r ru lin g s is su e d b yju d g e s a n d c o u rts in u n d e rly in g f a m ilym a tters in s t at e courtw er e barr ed byabs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni ty , quas i - j udi ci al i m m uni ty , and E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni ty . I n addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our trul ed thatbeca us e one 13

defe ndanti s a pr i vat e ci t i zen a nd nota s t at e ac t or , s he ca nnotbe s ubj ectt o l i abi l i tyunder 42 U . S. C . § 1983. D ongon t i m el yappea l ed. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm if D o n g o n ’s ap p ea l prese n ts no su b stan ti al qu esti o n . S ee 3 d C ir . L . A . R . 2 7 . 4 an d 3 d C ir . I . O . P. 10. 6. O urr evi ew i s pl enary . See M i l l erv. For t i s B enef i t s I ns . C o. , 475 F. 3d 516, 5 1 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). D ism issal i s p rop er if a p artyfa il s to a ll eg e su ff ici en t fac tual m att er, w hi ch i f ac cept ed as true, coul d “s t at e a c l ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ” A s hcr oftv. I qbal , 129 S. C t . 1937, 1949 ( 2009) ( quot i ng B el l A t l . C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U .S . 5 4 4 , 5 7 0 (2 0 0 7 )) . D ongon’ s act i on w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed bec aus e he c annotr ece i ve the r el i ef he request s. H e cann ot s ust ai n a clai m againstJudg es M anti neo , L i sboa, and L i sa becau se ju d g e s a re e n tit led to a b so lu te im m u n ityf ro m liab ili tyb a se d o n a c tio n s ta k e n in th e ir offi ci al j udi ci al capa ci ty . B r i s coe v. L aH ue, 460 U . S. 325, 334 ( 1983) ( ci t i ng Pi er s on v. R ay , 3 8 6 U . S . 5 4 7 , 5 5 4 (19 6 7 )); M ir eles v . W ac o , 5 0 2 U . S . 9 , 1 1 (19 9 1 ). D o n g o n ’s a lleg a tio n s th a t th e se ju d g e s c o m m itt e d “ w ill f u l f ra u d ” a re u n su p p o rte d , an d h is d is a g re e m e n t w ith th e ju d g e s ’ r u lin g s d o n o t p ro v id e a b a s is f o r r e lie f. Si m i l ar l y , D ongon’ s cl ai m s agai ns tN ew J er s eyFam i l ySuppor tD i vi s i on; the Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey ; N ew J er s eyA dm i ni s tr at i ve O ffi ce of C our t s ; and the Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey , A ppel l at e D i vi s i on w er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. D ongon does no tal l ege an yspeci fi c act i on bythese en t i t i es. E ven i f he d i d, anyact i on s t aken bytho se4

char ged w i th the r es pons i bi l i tyof ca rry i ng outa court ’ s or derw oul d be barr ed bythe doctr i ne of a bs ol ut e quas i - j udi ci al i m m uni ty . See G al l as v. Supr eme C our tof P e n n sy lv a n ia, 2 1 1 F .3 d 7 6 0 , 7 7 2 -7 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). A ltern a tiv e ly , the sta te c o u rts, its empl oy ees , and the j udges ar e ent i t l ed t o i m m uni tyunderthe El eventh A m endment b ec au se th eyare p art of the ju d ici al bra n ch o f th e state o f N ew Jerse y , an d there fo re cons i der ed “a r m s ” of the s t at e. See J ohns on v. St at e of N . J . , 869 F. Supp. 289, 296- 98 (D .N .J . 1 9 9 4 ). M or eover , t o s t at e a c l ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1983, a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege a vi ol at i on of a r i ghts ecur ed bythe C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of the U ni t ed St at es , and thatt he al l eged de pr i vat i on w as comm i t t ed bya “pe r s on” ac t i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw . W es tv. A t ki ns , 487 U . S. 42, 48 ( 1988) . N ei therthe named j udges northe court s ori t s empl oy ees ar e “pe r s ons ” s ubj ectt o l i abi l i tyunder§ 1983. See W i l l v. M i ch. D ep’ tof St at e Pol i ce, 491 U . S. 58, 71 ( 1989) . T he r emai ni ng defe ndant , D onna B anar , i s a pr i vat e ci t i zen a nd no ta st at e act or, and therefore cann ot be subj ectt o li abil i tyun der § 19 83 . W e al so c o n c lu d e th a t D o n g o n ’s g e n e ra l alle g a tio n s th a t h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts w e re v io late d f a il to sta te a c laim f

o r re lief. T o th e e x ten t th a t er ro rs o f sta te la w h a v e o c c u rre d , ev e n if tru e, th ese claim s d o n o t am o u n t t o a d en ial o f d u e p roc ess w arran ti n g fe d era l cou rt i nt e r ve nt i on . Se e G ry ge rv. Bur ke , 33 4 U. S. 72 8, 73 1 ( 19 48 ) ; Engl e v. I s a a c , 45 6 U. S. 1 0 7 , 1 2 1 & n .2 1 (1 9 8 2 ). A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notaddr es s w hetherD ongon’ s compl ai ntcan be5

cons trued as a r eques tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef, even i f i tw er e, the Y oungerabs t ent i on do ct ri ne ap pli es. T he S up rem e C ou rthas art i culat ed a long st and i ng pu bli c po l i cyagainst f e d e ra l co u rt in ter f

e re n c e w ith sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s a n d in stru c ts f e d e ra l co u rts to re f ra in f ro m tak in g a n ya c tio n in c a se s w h e re th e f e d e ra l p lain tiff

h a s o r h a d a d e q u a te re d re ss in sta te p ro c e e d in g s. Y o u n g e r v . H a rris, 4 0 1 U .S . 3 7 , 4 3 (1 9 7 1 ). B e c a u se it ap p ea rs th at st ate c o u rtp roc ee d ing s are p en d ing o r on g o ing in D o n g o n ’s ch il d su p p o rt m a tter, it w o u ld b e in a p p ro p ria te f o r th is C o u rt to in ter f

e re w ith th e sta te’ s in ter e st in admi ni s t er i ng i t s ow n fami l ycourt . See Tal i afe rr o v. D arbyT w p. Z oni ng B d. , 458 F. 3d 1 8 1 , 1 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A ccor di ngl y , beca us e di s m i s s al w as pr operand bec aus e the appe al pr es ent s no su b stan ti al qu esti o n , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rtjud g m en t. A p p ell an t’ s re m a in in g m o tio n s a re d e n ied a s m o o t.