Case Name: Janet BEDDINI, v. Thomas H. DILTS, P.J.S.C. Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-03
Citations: 132 F. App'x 974
Docket Number: No. 04-4151
Parties: Janet BEDDINI, v. Thomas H. DILTS, P.J.S.C. Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 974–974

Head Matter:
Janet BEDDINI, v. Thomas H. DILTS, P.J.S.C. Appellant.
No. 04-4151.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) March 24, 2005.
Decided June 3, 2005.
Janet Beddini, Belle Mead, NJ, pro se.
Joseph I. Picillo, Office of Attorney General, Trenton, NJ, for Appellant.
Before ALITO, McKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Janet Beddini appeals the District Court's order granting appellee's motion to dismiss. We conclude that the District Court's decision was proper, and, therefore, will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
In July 2004 Beddini filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985 & 1986. She alleged that Honorable Thomas H. Dilts, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Somerset County, New Jersey, violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights when he ruled on her motions in her family law case. Judge Dilts filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (2) and (6), which was granted by the District Court. Beddini timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss and concluded that Judge Dilts was absolutely immune from suit. We agree. Judge Dilts acted in his judicial capacity when ruling on the motions at issue. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). Beddini's claim that Judge Dilts conspired with others or acted maliciously does not alter the application of judicial immunity to this case. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); see, e.g., Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 26-27, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980).
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss Beddini's appeal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).