Opinion ID: 623422
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of the Amended Complaint

Text: Based on Judicial Appellees‟ legislative immunity, the District Court also sua sponte dismissed Appellants‟ Amended Complaint. Although the District Court failed to identify under what procedural rule it dismissed the Amended Complaint, we surmise that dismissal was in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Youngblood v. DeWeese, 352 F.3d 836, 842 (3d Cir. 2003) (concluding that legislative immunity was grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)). We have noted that sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper after service of process, Oatess v. Sobolevitch, 914 F.2d 428, 430 (3d Cir. 1990), but that it should be exercised with caution to ensure that the decision to dismiss is an informed one, Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 258 (3d Cir. 2008). This is the rare case where sua sponte dismissal was appropriate. The District Court had sufficient facts to determine that legislative immunity was an absolute bar to 2 We need not address Appellees‟ additional argument that Appellants‟ claims are moot. 10 Appellants‟ action. Appellants could present no additional facts that would militate against a finding of legislative immunity. We will affirm the District Court‟s sua sponte dismissal of Appellants‟ Amended Complaint.3