Kason Jamison v. Chrislyn Morgan

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1462 __________

KASON JAMISON, Appellant

v.

CHRISLYN MORGAN; JORGE COONS; NANCY RIDGEWAY; JANNETTE MURRAY; DAWN DOUGHERTY ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-10154) District Judge: Honorable Edward S. Kiel ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 26, 2025 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 1, 2026) ___________

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. Kason Jamison appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm

the District Court’s decision.

In October 2024, Jamison initiated a federal civil rights action in the District

Court. Jamison included no specific factual allegations against any of the named

defendants in his complaint — state court judges, court employees, and the mother of his

child. However, it appeared that Jamison sought to raise civil rights claims based on his

dissatisfaction with various orders relating to child support and custody proceedings in

New Jersey state court. After granting Jamison leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the

District Court screened and dismissed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), explaining that his sparse allegations failed to comply with Rule 8 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jamison timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a District Court’s

decision to dismiss a complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for

abuse of discretion, Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019), and we

exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

The District Court appropriately dismissed Jamison’s complaint, as it was largely

incomprehensible. Although Jamison seemed to disagree with the outcome of various

state court proceedings and made general arguments about the jurisdiction of the state

court, his complaint contained no factual allegations of any action taken by any defendant 2 that allegedly violated his rights and thus failed to put any defendant on notice of

potential claims against them. See Garrett, 938 F.3d at 93 (“[A] pleading that is so vague

or ambiguous that a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to respond to it will not

satisfy Rule 8.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Further, granting Jamison leave to amend would have been futile under the

circumstances of this case. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 106 (3d

Cir. 2002). Jamison includes new allegations for the first time on appeal regarding the

procedural history of his state court proceedings. However, even if he had raised these

allegations in an amended complaint, they would not have survived dismissal. Jamison

cannot bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the mother of his child, as she is a

private actor. See Benn v. Universal Health Sys., Inc., 371 F.3d 165, 169-71 (3d Cir.

2004). The state court judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for their

decisions in Jamison’s proceedings, as it appears that Jamison disagrees with those

decisions but has not provided factual allegations that could show that the judges engaged

in nonjudicial acts or took actions “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” See

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 12 (1991) (per curiam). Jamison’s only mention of the

remaining defendants vaguely suggests that they somehow conspired against him or

failed to respond to documents he sent them at unidentified times, which would not be

sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

3 For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order. 1

1 Jamison’s motion to expedite this appeal is denied. 4