Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-cv-01878
10-20-2023
AARON J. BRESSI, #MC-9898, Plaintiff, v. NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT, et al., Defendants.
MANNION, JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a fee-paid federal civil rights action. The incarcerated plaintiff, Aaron J. Bressi, filed his pro se amended complaint on January 23, 2023. (Doc. 17.)
The pro se amended complaint names twelve defendants: (1) the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas;(2) the Superior Court of Pennsylvania; (3) the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; (4) Hon. Paige Rosini, the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas judge who presided over the underlying state court criminal proceedings against Bressi;(5) Anthony Matulewicz, the Northumberland County district attorney and a prosecutor in the underlying state court criminal proceedings; (6) Robyn E. Zenzinger, the Northumberland County first assistant district attorney and a prosecutor in the underlying state court criminal proceedings; (7) Jamie Saleski, the prothonotary of the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas; (8) Marsha Skaff, a Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas custody and PFA hearing officer; (9) Joseph D. Seletyn, the prothonotary of the Pennsylvania Superior Court; (10) Jennifer Traxler, a deputy prothonotary with the Pennsylvania Superior Court; (11) Elizabeth E. Zisk, the chief clerk of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; and (12) Amy Dreibelbis, a deputy prothonotary with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The pro se amended complaint names “Northumberland County Court,” which we have liberally construed to mean the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas. See generally Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-46 (3d Cir. 2013) (discussing a court's obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings and other submissions, particularly when dealing with imprisoned pro se litigants).
Commonwealth v. Bressi, Docket No. CP-49-CP-0001513-2016 (Northumberland Cnty. (Pa.) C.C.P.). A district court, of course, may properly take judicial notice of such state court records, as well as its own. See Fed.R.Evid. 201; Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007); Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cnty., 108 F.3d 486, 498-99 (3d Cir. 1997); Pennsylvania v Brown, 373 F.2d 771, 778 (3d Cir. 1967).
The exact nature of Bressi's claims is not entirely clear. He appears to assert due process claims related to the defendants' handling of pro se filings he submitted to each of them, mostly in connection with postconviction collateral relief proceedings in the underlying state criminal proceedings.But it is clear that this action should be dismissed.
Claims against the hearing officer, Attorney Skoff, appear to concern her handling of Bressi's pro se application for PFA against the mother of his children, who appears to be the victim of the assault charged in the underlying state court criminal proceedings against him.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas are arms of the Pennsylvania state government, and thus they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 240 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that the Pennsylvania courts are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit). Accordingly, we recommend that the plaintiff's § 1983 claims against these three defendant state courts be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court may properly raise the issue of its subject matter jurisdiction over the state courts as defendants sua sponte. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742, 7503d Cir. 1995) (“Federal courts have an ever-present obligation to satisfy themselves of their subject matter jurisdiction and to decide the issue sua sponte ”); see also Johnson v. United States, Civil No. 1:CV-08-0816, 2009 WL 2762729, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2009).
Based on the allegations of the amended complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Bressi's claims against the remaining individual defendants are all barred by absolute judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutorial immunity. Bressi's claim against Judge Rosini, the presiding judge in his state court criminal proceedings, is barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Mireles v Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1991) (per curiam); Gallas v Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir. 2000); Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F.Supp.2d 596, 660 (E.D. Pa. 2014). Bressi's claims against the county prosecutors, Mr. Matulewicz and Ms. Zenzinger, are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); Walker v. City of Philadelphia, 436 Fed. App'x 61, 62 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1463-64 (3d Cir. 1992). His claims against the several state court staff members-a chief clerk and several prothonotaries and deputy prothonotaries-based on their handling of litigation papers he submitted for filing with their courts, are barred by quasi-judicial immunity. See Marcedes v. Barrett, 453 F.2d 391, 392 (3d Cir. 1971); Lockhart v Hoenstine, 411 F.2d 455, 459-60 (3d Cir. 1969); Davis v Philadelphia Cnty., 195 F.Supp.2d 686, 688 (E.D. Pa. 2002). His claim against Ms. Skoff, in connection with actions taken in her role as a custody and PFA hearing officer for the court of common pleas, is barred by quasi-judicial immunity as well. See Lepre v. Tolerico, 156 Fed. App'x 522, 525 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Rose v. Cnty. of Lehigh, No. CIV. A. 01-13, 2001 WL 1085044, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2001). Accordingly, we recommend that the plaintiff's § 1983 claims against all of the individual defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
The Third Circuit has instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). In this case, based on the facts alleged in the pro se amended complaint and the plaintiff's substantial history of meritless or frivolous serial litigation, it is clear that any further amendment would be futile. See Jones v. SCO Family of Servs., 202 F.Supp.3d 345, 350 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (considering evidence outside of the pleadings for limited purpose of whether to grant leave to amend); Lauter v. Anoufrieva, 642 F.Supp.2d 1060, 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“A court may consider factual allegations outside the complaint in determining whether to grant leave to amend.”); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. United Limousine Serv., Inc., 303 F.Supp.2d 432, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Therefore, we recommend that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed without leave to amend.
See Bressi v. Gembic, No. 23-5318, 2023 WL 6558730 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2023) (dismissing petition for writ of certiorari and instructing that, “[a]s petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee . . . is paid and the petition” complies with booklet formatting rules); Bressi v. McCloud, No. 23-5316, 2023 WL 6558728 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2023) (same); Bressi v. Brennen, No. 23-5317, 2023 WL 6379069 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2023) (same); see also Bressi v. Pa. Parole Bd., No. 4:23-CV-00440, 2023 WL 5184965 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2023); Bressi v. Norhumberland Cnty. CYS, Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-1776, 2023 WL 3919751 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2023), R&R adopted, 2023 WL 3919543 (M.D. Pa. June 9, 2023), appeal filed, No. 23-2156 (3d Cir. June 29, 2023); Bressi v. Pa. Parole Bd., No. 1:21-CV-01265, 2022 WL 617117 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2022), aff'd per curiam, No. 22-1462, 2022 WL 17337570 (3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2022), cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 2485 (2023); Bressi v. McCloud, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-01345, 2019 WL 7372778 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2019), R&R adopted, 2019 WL 7290430 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2019), aff'd per curiam, No. 20-1077, 2021 WL 5054351 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1383 (2022); Bressi v. Brennen, Civil Action No. 4:17cv-01742, 2019 WL 5092529 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2019), R&R adopted, 2019 WL 4386897 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2019), aff'd per curiam, 823 Fed. App'x 116 (3d Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1705 (2021); Bressi v. Gembic, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-01405, 2018 WL 3596859 (M.D. Pa. July 2, 2018), R&R adopted, 2018 WL 3584694 (M.D. Pa. July 26, 2018), aff'd per curiam, 752 Fed. App'x 113 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 166 (2019).
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that:
1. The plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the three state court defendants-the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas-be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. The plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the remaining individual defendants-Hon. Paige Rosini, Anthony Matulewicz, Robyn E. Zenzinger, Jamie Saleski, Marsha Skaff, Joseph D. Seletyn, Jennifer Traxler, Elizabeth E. Zisk, and Amy Dreibelbis-be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and
3. The clerk be directed to mark this case as CLOSED.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated October 20, 2023. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.