Ifeoma Ezekwo v. Joseph Monaghan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: July 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-2231
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-2231 __________

IFEOMA EZEKWO, Appellant

v.

JOSEPH G. MONAGHAN JSC Individually and in his official capacity as Justice of the Superior Court, Bergen County, New Jersey; MICHAEL GUERRA, Individually and in his capacity as Court Officer of Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County; SHERIFF CURETON, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Bergen County, New Jersey; YAJAIRA ALONZO; TYREE BALMER; CITY OF ENGLEWOOD; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-05155) District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 23, 2024 Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 29, 2024) ___________

OPINION * ___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Ifeoma Ezekwo appeals pro se from an order granting the defendants’ motions to

dismiss her complaint, which contained allegations stemming from a dispute over the

return of a rental property security deposit that had been paid to Ezekwo. We will affirm.

In 2021, Ezekwo filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey. Ezekwo cited fifteen purported bases for relief, including, among

other things, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “abuse of process,” and “blatant discrimination.” She

named as defendants New Jersey Superior Court Judge Joseph G. Monaghan, Court

Officer Michael Guerra, and Bergen County Sheriff Anthony Cureton. 1 According to the

complaint, Ezekwo’s tenant obtained a state court judgment against her in the amount of

$4667 but, when Ezekwo attempted to satisfy the judgment by delivering the money to

the state court, Judge Monaghan “refused to accept the money.” Ezekwo also alleged

that Guerra obtained a warrant to satisfy the judgment by “fil[ing] . . . false information

with Judge Monaghan” and harassed Ezekwo’s tenant. The complaint further alleged

that Sheriff Cureton was “obligated by law to inform [Ezekwo] of any planned levy but

did not do so.” Ezekwo sought money damages and injunctive relief. Judge Monaghan,

Guerra, and Sheriff Cureton separately moved to dismiss Ezekwo’s complaint. The

District Court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that Judge Monaghan and Guerra

were immune from suit and that Ezekwo failed to state a claim against Sheriff Cureton.

1 The complaint named additional defendants but the District Court dismissed them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect service. Ezekwo does not challenge that dismissal. 2 The District Court also provided Ezekwo with leave to amend within 30 days of the entry

of its order. Rather than file an amended complaint, Ezekwo filed a notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co.,

977 F.2d 848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52

(3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). We exercise de novo review over the District Court’s grant

of a motion to dismiss. See Newark Cab Ass’n v. City of Newark, 901 F.3d 146, 151 (3d

Cir. 2018). To survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true,” to show that its claims are facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

The District Court properly determined that Judge Monaghan and Guerra are

entitled to immunity. Judges and judicial officers generally are immune from civil suits

for money damages for actions taken in their judicial capacity. Mireles v. Waco, 502

U.S. 9, 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam); Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 2006)

(per curiam) (“A judicial officer in the performance of his duties has absolute immunity

from suit and will not be liable for his judicial acts.”). Ezekwo’s claims against Judge

Monaghan and Guerra principally focused on the entry and enforcement of the state court

judgment. Such actions plainly were taken in their judicial capacities. To the extent that

Ezekwo claimed that the actions were incorrect or improper, those allegations are

insufficient to defeat immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).

Although “absolute judicial immunity extends only to claims for damages,” Larsen v.

Senate of the Commonwealth, 152 F.3d 240, 249 (3d Cir. 1998), “in any action brought

against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,

3 injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or

declaratory relief was unavailable.” § 1983. Nothing in Ezekwo’s complaint suggests

that this exception applies. See Azubuko, 443 F.3d at 303-04.

We also agree that Ezekwo failed to state a claim against Sheriff Cureton. As

noted, above, Ezekwo alleged that Sheriff Cureton was “obligated by law to inform [her]

of any planned levy but did not do so.” This vague allegation was insufficient to state a

claim under any of the fifteen purported legal theories identified in the complaint. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Ezekwo also suggested that Sheriff Cureton

was liable because he supervised Guerra. It is well settled, however, that liability under

§ 1983 may not be based on the doctrine of respondeat superior. See Durmer v.

O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 n.14 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Santiago v. Warminster Twp.,

629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (“Particularly after Iqbal, the connection between the

supervisor’s directions and the constitutional deprivation must be sufficient to

demonstrate a plausible nexus or affirmative link between the directions and the specific

deprivation of constitutional rights at issue.”) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). In any event, Ezekwo’s complaint makes clear that Guerra was employed by

the state courts, not the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office. 2

2 Sheriff Cureton attached to his motion to dismiss the declaration of a payroll supervisor for the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office, who explained that Guerra was not an employee. To the extent that the District Court relied on the declaration, it should have converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Hancock Indus. v. Schaeffer, 811 F.2d 225, 229 (3d Cir. 1987). Any error, however, is harmless, as there is no set of facts on which Ezekwo could possibly recover. See Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 342 (3d Cir. 1989).

4 For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.