Opinion ID: 3019631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against Graff and Holtzapple

Text: Next, James asserted a claim against District Attorney William Graff and Clerk of 6 Court Marlyn Holtzapple. The District Court correctly found that both Graff and Holtzapple are protected by absolute immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976) (prosecutor); Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019, 1020 (3d Cir. 1972). No exceptions to the rule are applicable. See Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 772 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). C. Claims against Heritage Valley Federal Credit Union and its Employees James also raised claims against the Heritage Valley Federal Credit Union, its President and Chairman, Ames and Dunkelberger respectively, and an employee, Jane Gee. To the extent James raises claims under § 1983, none of the defendants is a state actor. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Also, James’ claim under the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5318, does not authorize a private cause of action against a financial institution or its employees. See Lawrence Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. New Jersey, 417 F.3d 368, 371 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that a private citizen may only enforce a federal law if Congress has created a private right of action). Even if a cause of action were provided, § 5138(g)(3) creates a safe-harbor provision precluding liability for actions in conformity with the statute. James’ claim under the Right to Financial Privacy Act fails for similar reasons. The Act gives an account holder the right to challenge the disclosure of his financial records. 12 U.S.C. § 3410. However, the challenge procedures set forth in the section constitute the sole judicial remedy available for contesting disclosure pursuant to the chapter and do not include an allowance for monetary damages. § 1310(e), see also 7 Lawrence Tp., 417 F.3d at 371. Moreover, the chapter immunizes banks and their employees from suit for disclosing information relevant to the violation of a statute or regulation. 12 U.S.C. § 1303(c). The safe-harbor provision also requires the rejection of James’ claims under the Freedom of Information Act, RICO, and the Uniform Commercial Code. D. Remaining Claims We have reviewed James’ remaining claims against Todd King, as well as his challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and agree with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in the report and recommendation. However, we also construe James’ complaint to allege an Eighth Amendment challenge to the civil asset forfeiture of $1,728. The Eighth Amendment prohibits forfeiture of property in an amount disproportionate to the crime. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 335 (1998). In Bajakajian, a foreign national violated a financial reporting provision, which carried a maximum fine of $5,000, yet the government sought the forfeiture of over $350,000. Id. at 325-26. The Supreme Court held in part that a good starting point to assess proportionality would be the relationship between the permitted criminal sanction, i.e, the gravity of the offense, and the amount of forfeiture sought. Id. at 337-338. Here, James was convicted of two narcotics possession offenses under 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 730-113(a)(30). The crimes permit fines of up to $250,000, or more if the assets relating to the crime total more than the proscribed maximum. § 730-113(f)(1). James was found in possession of nearly ten pounds of marijuana and over two pounds of cocaine. A 8 forfeited amount of under $2,000 is certainly proportionate to the offense. The claim must fail. In sum, because our review of the pertinent orders entered by the District Court and arguments raised on appeal reveals that the appeal lacks all legal merit, we will dismiss. 9