NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 23-2072 ______________ JEFFREY J. PROSSER; JOHN P. RAYNOR, Appellants v. GRETCHEN C.F. SHAPPERT, Virgin Islands USA, in her Official Capacity; MERRICK B. GARLAND, the U.S. Attorney General in his Official Capacity ______________ On Appeal from the District Court for the Virgin Islands (D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00026) District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 10, 2024
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge; MONTGOMERY-REEVES and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: January 16, 2025) ______________ OPINION ______________ MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judge.
Jeffrey J. Prosser and John P. Raynor (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the District Court’s
orders dismissing their claims and denying their motion for reconsideration. Because the
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. District Court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for which
relief can be granted, we will affirm the District Court’s orders.
I. BACKGROUND
In March 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of the Virgin
Islands seeking declaratory judgments that they are entitled to certain documents (the
“Complaint”). District Court Docket No. 3:21-cv-00026, ECF No. 1 (hereinafter
“Compl.”). The Complaint stated that “[j]urisdiction exists under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (depravation of rights) which
presents a Federal Question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (Judicial
Review under the Administrative Procedure Act).” Compl. 4. The Complaint listed the
defendants as Gretchen Shappert, the Virgin Islands United States Attorney, and Merrick
Garland, the United States Attorney General, both named solely in their official
capacities (“Defendants”). The Complaint also stated that “[t]his action seeks only to
obtain documents, EVIDENCE, necessary to end the Deprivation and to redress: the
Enterprise Retaliatory Acts and the Enterprise’s Financial Racketeering Activities.”
Compl. 9. The only relief sought by the Complaint are two declaratory judgments: one
declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to sealed documents in a criminal proceeding to
which they are not parties and another declaring that they are entitled to documents that
they allege are in the possession of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”).
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim. The District Court granted their motion and dismissed the
Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration that did not address the District
2 Court’s basis for dismissing the Complaint, but instead argued exclusively that the Virgin
Islands Bankruptcy Court is unlawfully constituted and requested that the District Court
stay all proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court and adjudicate whether the Bankruptcy
Court is lawfully constituted. The District Court denied the motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs appealed.
II. DISCUSSION1
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their claims and the denial of their motion
for reconsideration of that dismissal. We address each decision in turn below.
A. Motion to Dismiss
We review de novo the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6),
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. GBForefront, L.P. v.
Forefront Mgmt. Grp., 888 F.3d 29, 34 n.5 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Horizon
Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 632 (3d Cir. 2017)); Simon v.
FIA Card Servs., N.A., 732 F.3d 259, 264 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Mariotti v. Mariotti Bldg.
Prods., Inc., 714 F.3d 761, 765 (3d Cir. 2013)).
As to subject matter jurisdiction, the District Court correctly held that neither the
Declaratory Judgment Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act provide an independent
1 The District Court had jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, see United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (citing United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 291 (1947)), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3 basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Allen v. DeBello, 861 F.3d 433, 444 (3d
Cir. 2017); Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). But Plaintiffs attempt to plead
a § 1983 claim, which does give rise to federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. Kulick
v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass’n, Inc., 816 F.2d 895, 897 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus, the
District Court erred in holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Regardless, the District Court correctly dismissed the Complaint for failure to state
a claim for three reasons. First, “federal agencies and officers are facially exempt from
section 1983 liability inasmuch as in the normal course of events they act pursuant to
federal law.” Hindes v. F.D.I.C., 137 F.3d 148, 158 (3d Cir. 1998) (collecting cases).
There are no allegations in the Complaint that either Shappert or Garland ever acted
under color of state law. Therefore, both Defendants are facially exempt from liability
under § 1983.
Second, Plaintiffs cannot use one district court judge to overrule an order of a
different district court judge. Here, Plaintiffs seek sealed records in a criminal
proceeding before the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the “Williams Court”).
Plaintiffs correctly filed a motion to unseal the records in front of the Williams Court.
But Plaintiffs must wait for the Williams Court to rule on their motion. If Plaintiffs do
not like the ruling, they may appeal the decision. Alternatively, if there is a legal basis to
do so, Plaintiffs may file a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Williams Court to
rule on the pending motion. See Madden v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 23-2072 ______________ JEFFREY J. PROSSER; JOHN P. RAYNOR, Appellants v. GRETCHEN C.F. SHAPPERT, Virgin Islands USA, in her Official Capacity; MERRICK B. GARLAND, the U.S. Attorney General in his Official Capacity ______________ On Appeal from the District Court for the Virgin Islands (D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00026) District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 10, 2024
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge; MONTGOMERY-REEVES and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: January 16, 2025) ______________ OPINION ______________ MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judge.
Jeffrey J. Prosser and John P. Raynor (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the District Court’s
orders dismissing their claims and denying their motion for reconsideration. Because the
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. District Court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for which
relief can be granted, we will affirm the District Court’s orders.
I. BACKGROUND
In March 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of the Virgin
Islands seeking declaratory judgments that they are entitled to certain documents (the
“Complaint”). District Court Docket No. 3:21-cv-00026, ECF No. 1 (hereinafter
“Compl.”). The Complaint stated that “[j]urisdiction exists under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (depravation of rights) which
presents a Federal Question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (Judicial
Review under the Administrative Procedure Act).” Compl. 4. The Complaint listed the
defendants as Gretchen Shappert, the Virgin Islands United States Attorney, and Merrick
Garland, the United States Attorney General, both named solely in their official
capacities (“Defendants”). The Complaint also stated that “[t]his action seeks only to
obtain documents, EVIDENCE, necessary to end the Deprivation and to redress: the
Enterprise Retaliatory Acts and the Enterprise’s Financial Racketeering Activities.”
Compl. 9. The only relief sought by the Complaint are two declaratory judgments: one
declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to sealed documents in a criminal proceeding to
which they are not parties and another declaring that they are entitled to documents that
they allege are in the possession of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”).
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim. The District Court granted their motion and dismissed the
Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration that did not address the District
2 Court’s basis for dismissing the Complaint, but instead argued exclusively that the Virgin
Islands Bankruptcy Court is unlawfully constituted and requested that the District Court
stay all proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court and adjudicate whether the Bankruptcy
Court is lawfully constituted. The District Court denied the motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs appealed.
II. DISCUSSION1
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their claims and the denial of their motion
for reconsideration of that dismissal. We address each decision in turn below.
A. Motion to Dismiss
We review de novo the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6),
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. GBForefront, L.P. v.
Forefront Mgmt. Grp., 888 F.3d 29, 34 n.5 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Horizon
Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 632 (3d Cir. 2017)); Simon v.
FIA Card Servs., N.A., 732 F.3d 259, 264 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Mariotti v. Mariotti Bldg.
Prods., Inc., 714 F.3d 761, 765 (3d Cir. 2013)).
As to subject matter jurisdiction, the District Court correctly held that neither the
Declaratory Judgment Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act provide an independent
1 The District Court had jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, see United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002) (citing United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 291 (1947)), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3 basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Allen v. DeBello, 861 F.3d 433, 444 (3d
Cir. 2017); Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). But Plaintiffs attempt to plead
a § 1983 claim, which does give rise to federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. Kulick
v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass’n, Inc., 816 F.2d 895, 897 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus, the
District Court erred in holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Regardless, the District Court correctly dismissed the Complaint for failure to state
a claim for three reasons. First, “federal agencies and officers are facially exempt from
section 1983 liability inasmuch as in the normal course of events they act pursuant to
federal law.” Hindes v. F.D.I.C., 137 F.3d 148, 158 (3d Cir. 1998) (collecting cases).
There are no allegations in the Complaint that either Shappert or Garland ever acted
under color of state law. Therefore, both Defendants are facially exempt from liability
under § 1983.
Second, Plaintiffs cannot use one district court judge to overrule an order of a
different district court judge. Here, Plaintiffs seek sealed records in a criminal
proceeding before the District Court of the Virgin Islands (the “Williams Court”).
Plaintiffs correctly filed a motion to unseal the records in front of the Williams Court.
But Plaintiffs must wait for the Williams Court to rule on their motion. If Plaintiffs do
not like the ruling, they may appeal the decision. Alternatively, if there is a legal basis to
do so, Plaintiffs may file a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Williams Court to
rule on the pending motion. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[A]n
appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is
4 tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction[.]”). But there is no basis for the District
Court here to review the decision of the Williams Court to seal the documents at issue.
Third, Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the process outlined in the Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”) to obtain the documents they seek from the DOJ here. Until
Plaintiffs have filed a FOIA request, and the DOJ has denied that request, they cannot
seek the documents from the DOJ through the District Court. See McDonnell v. United
States, 4 F.3d 1227, 1236–41 (3d Cir. 1993). We will therefore affirm the District
Court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
B. Motion for Reconsideration
“[This] Court reviews a denial of a motion for reconsideration under an abuse-of-
discretion standard.” United States ex rel. Ascolese v. Shoemaker Constr. Co., 55 F.4th
188, 193 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing B.C. v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 12 F.4th 306, 313 (3d Cir. 2021)).
“The purpose of such a motion is to correct a clear error of law or to prevent a manifest
injustice in the District Court’s original ruling.” United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724,
732 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999)). These “motions ‘are granted for “compelling reasons,”
such as a change in the law which reveals that an earlier ruling was erroneous, not for
addressing arguments that a party should have raised earlier.’” Id. (quoting Solis v.
Current Dev. Corp., 557 F.3d 772, 780 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted)).
While “[m]otions to reconsider empower the court to change course when a mistake has
5 been made, they do not empower litigants . . . to raise their arguments, piece by piece.”
Id. at 732–33 (alterations in original) (quoting Solis, 557 F.3d at 780).
Here, the District Court dismissed the Complaint, which sought declaratory
judgments that Plaintiffs were entitled to certain documents, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. In response, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration that did not address any of the grounds for dismissal but instead solely
attacked the legality of the Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court and requested that the
District Court stay all bankruptcy proceedings in the Virgin Islands and adjudicate
whether the Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court was lawfully constituted. This request for
relief is not included in the Complaint; Plaintiffs did not raise the argument that the
Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court is unlawfully constituted in their opposition to the
motion for dismiss; and both the requests and argument are irrelevant to the District
Court’s bases for dismissing the Complaint. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse
its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we will affirm the District Court’s orders
dismissing the claims and denying the motion for reconsideration.