Court Opinion

ID: 9370828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 19:00:21.954998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.043723
License: Public Domain

BLD-080                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

                                       No. 22-3010
                                       ___________

                                     JESSE D. BOND,

                                                   Appellant

                                             v.

                                 SCOTT DICLAUDIO
                        ____________________________________

                      On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                          (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-02812)
                       District Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith
                       ____________________________________

          Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
            Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                     January 26, 2023

                Before: AMBRO*, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: February 14, 2023)

                                        OPINION**

*
    Judge Ambro assumed senior status February 6, 2023.
*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM

       Appellant Jesse Bond, an inmate in state prison proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, appeals from the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his

complaint. We will summarily affirm.

       In his complaint, Bond, proceeding in forma pauperis, sued the Honorable Scott

DiClaudio, a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Bond alleged that Judge DiClaudio violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and

committed usurpation and treason because he dismissed Bond’s state Post Conviction

Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition as untimely despite a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 4-6; see Commonwealth v. Bond, No. 939 EDA 2022, 2023 WL 153154,

at *3 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2023) (affirming the dismissal). He sought declaratory

relief and compensatory and punitive damages. Dkt. No. 1 at 8-9.

       The District Court screened Bond’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

and dismissed it with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that Judge

DiClaudio is protected by judicial immunity and the requested declaratory relief is

unavailable. Dkt. No. 9 at 4-6. Bond filed this timely appeal.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over

the dismissal of the complaint. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

Upon review, we will affirm because no substantial question is presented on appeal. See

3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4.

       The District Court was correct to dismiss the claims against Judge DiClaudio

because the acts that Bond described were taken in Judge DiClaudio’s judicial capacity.

                                             2
Bond did not plausibly allege that Judge DiClaudio acted outside his jurisdiction in

presiding over and ruling on his PCRA petition, as the District Court explained.

Therefore, Judge DiClaudio is entitled to absolute immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978) (explaining that judges are not civilly liable for judicial

acts); see also Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (explaining that

judicial immunity is only overcome for nonjudicial actions or for judicial actions taken in

the complete absence of jurisdiction).1

       The District Court also did not abuse its discretion in concluding that amendment

is futile because Bond is unable to cure the deficiencies of his complaint. See Grayson v.

Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir 2002).

       Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1
  The District Court also properly concluded that the declaratory relief that Bond
requested, for conduct that occurred in the past, is not available. Declaratory relief is
“prospective in nature,” CMR D.N. v. City of Philadelphia, 703 F.3d 612, 628 (3d Cir.
2013), and Bond sought retrospective relief, see Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 50 U.S. 139, 145-46 (1993).
                                             3