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 10-7-2005 

# M cD aniel v . T urnb a ch 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 . 05-2801

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 cD anie l v

. T urnb a ch" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 440. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/440B PS-371 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- 2801

______________________________________

M I CH AEL P. M CD AN I EL, A ppel l ant v. E DWARD J . T UR NB AC H; P E T E R J . G IO V IN E , In d iv id u a lly a n d in th e ir/h is o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity, a s J u stic e o f

th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f

O c e a n C o u n ty

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

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 03- cv- 04740) D i s t r i ctJ udge: M aryL . C ooper

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) Sept ember15, 2005 Be f o r e : REN DELL, FI SHER A ND VA N A NTW ERPEN, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: O ct ober7, 2005)

____________________ OP I NI ON

____________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antM i chae l P. M cD ani el , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the M ay20, 2005, or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey2

di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . Forthe r eas ons that foll ow , w e w i l l dis m i ss the ap peal as fri vo l ou s. S ee 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) (2) (B ); see al so N eit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 9 0 U . S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ). I n 2000, M cD ani el w as char ged w i t h t w o count s of s econd- degr ee r obberyby se p a ra te in d ictm e n ts in O c e a n C o u n ty , N e w Je rse y . M c D a n iel’s c a se w a s in iti a lly a ss ig n e d to S u p e rio r C o u rt Ju d g e G io v in e , w h o se t b a il at $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . A c c o rd in g to h is compl ai nt , aft erM cD ani el fi l ed a mot i on t o r ecus e J udge G i ovi ne, hi s cas e w as r e a s s i g n e d t o S u p e r i o rC o u r tJ u d g e T u r n b a c h . I n 2 0 0 1 , M c D a n i e l w a s c o n v i c t e d b y a j ur yof one c ountof s econd- degr ee r obbery , and pl ed gui l t yt o one countof s econd- degr ee r obbery . M cD ani el w as s ent ence d i n A ugus t2001, and has s i nce be en i ncar cer at ed att he N ew J er s eySt at e Pr i s on i n T r ent on. I n O ct ober2003, M cD ani el s ubm i t t ed the under l y i ng compl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . I n hi s compl ai nt , M cD ani el al l eged thatJ udges G io v in e a n d T u rn b a c h v io late d h is F o u rth , F if th , S ix th , E ig h th , an d F o u rte e n th A m endmentr i ght s dur i ng hi s 2000 and 2001 cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . M cD ani el s ought e q u itab le r e lief

, as k in g th e D istric t C o u rt to e n ter a n o rd e r d e c id in g w h e th e r: (1 ) h is ext ended t erm s ent ence i s appr opr i at e, he i s a habi tual offe nder , and hi s gui l t ypl ea w as know i ng and i nt el l i gent ; and ( 2) J udges G i ovi ne and Tur nbach a dm i t t ed “t ai nt ed” evidence b ecause o f raci al bias . I n an or derent er ed on M ay20, 2005, the D i s t r i ctC our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s ed3

M cD ani el ’ s compl ai ntpur s uantt o § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . Fi r s t , i ns ofaras M cD ani el w as at t empt i ng t o chal l enge the fa ctordur at i on of hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence , the D i s t r i ct C our tconcl uded thathi s s ol e r emedyi s a fe der al pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus . See Pr ei s erv. R odr i guez, 411 U . S. 475, 488- 90 ( 1973) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tnextexpl ai ned th a t, t o th e e x ten t th a t M c D a n iel’s c laim s “ w o u ld n e c e ss a rilyim p lyth e in v a lid ityo f h is c o n v ic tio n o r s e n te n c e , th e ya re b a rr e d b yH e c k v . H u m p h re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 7 (1 9 9 4 ). Fi nal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thateven i f M cD ani el ’ s compl ai ntcoul d be r ead a s as s er t i ng a cl ai m fordamages agai ns tJ udges G i ovi ne and Tur nbach, di s m i s s al w oul d be appr opr i at e bec aus e theyar e abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om s ui tfordamages under§ 1983 w hen theyacti n a j udi ci al capa ci t y . See Stum p v. Spar km an, 435 U . S. 349, 356- 57 ( 1978) . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. M cD ani el has been g ra n ted lea v e to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l. W h e n a n a p p e llan t p ro c e e d s in f o rm a p a u p e ri s , th is C o u rt m u s t d is m is s th e a p p e a l if it is “ f ri v o lo u s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . A fr i vol ous appea l has no ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke, 490 U . S. at325. A ft era ca r eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e w i l l di s m i s s thi s appea l as fr i vol ous beca us e M cD ani el ’ s cl ai m s l ack mer i tforthe r eas ons ful l yexpl ai ned i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s compre hens i ve opi ni on.