Court Opinion

ID: 9839910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 17:00:52.660968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:04.303905
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                  FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                       ___________

                            No. 22-2642
                            __________

                     JEREMIAH MOORE, SR.,
                                 Appellant

                                 v.

    MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE;
     KEVIN R. STEELE; RICHARD H. BRADBURY, JR.; SCOTT
   FANK FRAME; KATHLEEN A. MCLAUGHLIN; MAGISTRATE
    DISTRICT COURTHOUSE 38-1-12; EDWARD C. KROPP, SR.;
   GREGORY SCOTT; BOROUGH HALL POLICE DEPARTMENT;
      CRAIG A. JOHNSON; JAMIE O'NEILL; MARK BOYCE;
     PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE;
   REBECCA SHIVES; MICHAEL K. WARD; SCOTT K. WOOLF;
ESCAILLAS HEARING EXAMINER; DONALD HEARING EXAMINER;
           COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
            ____________________________________

           On Appeal from the United States District Court
              for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
               (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-02880)
             District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sánchez
            ____________________________________

          Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                        September 13, 2023
     Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                (Opinion filed: September 14, 2023)
                                       ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

         Jeremiah Moore, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals an order of the

District Court dismissing his complaint. For the following reasons, we will affirm.

         Moore filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was

arrested, incarcerated, and deprived of his property in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and in contravention of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights.1 The District Court screened the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and

dismissed it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12912 and exercise plenary review

over a District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e). Dooley v.

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
 Moore named a variety defendants, including the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the
Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, Montgomery County District Attorney
Kevin R. Steele, and Assistant District Attorneys Richard H. Bradbury, Jr., Scott Frank
Frame, and Kathleen A. McLauguin (the “Prosecutor Defendants”); “Magisteral District
Court 38-1-12”; Judges Edward C. Kropp, Sr., and Greggory Scott (the “Judicial
Defendants”); “Borough Hall Police Department”; Pottstown Police Officers Craig A.
Johnson, Jamie O’Niell, and Mark Boyce (the “Police Officer Defendants”);
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole; Parole Agents Rebecca Shives and Michael
K. Ward, Pennsylvania Parole Board Acting Secretary Scott K. Woolf, and Parole Board
Hearing Examiners “Escaillas” and “Donald” (the “Parole Board Defendants”).
2
    The District Court’s order—which dismissed some claims with prejudice and some
                                              2
Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). To avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). We may

summarily affirm if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.

27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

       Moore’s appellate brief does not meaningfully present any issues for us to review.

As a pro se appellant, Moore is afforded liberal construction of his pleadings. See Haines

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). But the failure to raise an issue in an opening

brief, even by pro se parties, renders it forfeited. See Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d

184, 190 n.5 (3d Cir. 2002). To properly present an issue to the Court for review, a

litigant’s opening brief must include, among other things, a statement of the issue, the

legal argument explaining why the district court decided the issue incorrectly, and the

facts and legal authorities supporting that argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 28. Moore’s

brief, by contrast, includes only a short “statement of the case,” without any legal or

factual analysis, legal authorities, or argument explaining why the District Court’s

decision was erroneous. This type of presentation is inadequate. See Higgins v. Bayada

Home Health Care Inc., 62 F.4th 755, 763 (3d Cir. 2023).

claims without prejudice—is appealable because Moore declared his intent to stand on
his complaint. See Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007)
(concluding that the plaintiff stood on her complaint because she filed a notice of appeal
rather than amending within specified time period, then argued that the allegations in her
complaint were sufficient).
                                                3
       Nevertheless, we have examined the District Court’s rulings and determine that

they were proper. For instance, Moore’s claims against the Judicial and Prosecutor

Defendants, which principally focused on the actions that they took in their judicial and

prosecutorial capacities, were barred by immunity. See Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302,

303 (3d Cir. 2006); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). The Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania is also immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and has not

waived that immunity as to lawsuits in federal court. See Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr.,

968 F.3d 299, 309–10 (3d Cir. 2020). Similarly, the Magisterial District Court, as a part

of Pennsylvania’s Unified Judicial System, shares in the Commonwealth’s immunity and

is not considered a “person” subject to liability under § 1983. See Callahan v. City of

Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 673 (3d Cir. 2000). Likewise, although local governmental

units may constitute “persons” against whom suit may be brought under § 1983, see

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), municipal police departments

are governmental sub-units that are not distinct from the municipalities of which they are

a part, see Bonenberger v. Plymouth Twp., 132 F.3d 20, 25 n.4 (3d Cir. 1997), and thus

may not be separately sued under § 1983. The Pennsylvania Parole Board is also not a

cognizable § 1983 defendant for money damages, see Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231,

232 (3d Cir. 1977), and the Parole Board Defendants were entitled to immunity from

claims for damages related to the exercise of their adjudicatory duties, see Harper v.

Jeffries, 808 F.2d 281, 284 (3d Cir. 1986).

                                              4
       The District Court was also correct to dismiss the claims against Officers O’Niell

and Johnson, as Moore did not state plausible claims of false arrest, false imprisonment,

unreasonable search and seizure, or conspiracy. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; United States

v. Kithcart, 134 F.3d 529, 531 (3d Cir. 1998) (explaining that the constitutional validity

of a search incident to arrest depends on the constitutional validity of the arrest);

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127–28 (1990) (explaining that due process generally

requires notice and a hearing before a person is deprived of property).

       For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

                                              5