Radocesky v. Munley

Third Circuit

Radocesky v. Munley

329 F. App'x 336

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 2009

DocketNo. 08-4788

StatusPublished

This text of 329 F. App'x 336 (Radocesky v. Munley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Radocesky v. Munley, 329 F. App'x 336 (3d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas N. Radocesky appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his civil complaint. For the following reasons, we "will summarily affirm. See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and IOP 10.6.

In October 2008, Radocesky filed a civil complaint alleging that the Honorable James M. Munley, a federal judge, violated the Code of Conduct for Judges and the United States Constitution. The allegations appear to stem from Judge Munley’s adjudication of a lawsuit Radocesky brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that suit, Radocesky sued members of the [337]*337Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office and members of the Public Defender’s Office claiming that they convinced him to plead guilty to crimes he did not commit. Judge Munley dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and we dismissed the appeal as frivolous. See Radocesky v. Munley, 247 Fed.Appx. 863 (3d Cir.2007) (per curiam) (not precedential). Radocesky now apparently claims that Judge Munley deprived him of various constitutional rights throughout the course of that action and also violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The District Court dismissed the claim and Ra-docesky filed a timely notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We summarily affirm an order of the district court “when ‘no substantial question’ is presented by the appeal.” United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 190 n. 3 (3d Cir.2000) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

The District Court correctly determined that judges are immunized from a suit for damages for acts done in the performance of their judicial duties. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). That immunity is lost only when a judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gallas v. Sup. Ct. of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 769 (3d Cir.2000). Here, Radocesky has not alleged that Judge Munley acted in the absence of all jurisdiction. Therefore, because Radoce-sky’s appeal presents us with no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and IOP 10.6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas N. Radocesky appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his civil complaint. For the following reasons, we "will summarily affirm. See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and IOP 10.6.

In October 2008, Radocesky filed a civil complaint alleging that the Honorable James M. Munley, a federal judge, violated the Code of Conduct for Judges and the United States Constitution. The allegations appear to stem from Judge Munley’s adjudication of a lawsuit Radocesky brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that suit, Radocesky sued members of the [337]*337Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office and members of the Public Defender’s Office claiming that they convinced him to plead guilty to crimes he did not commit. Judge Munley dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and we dismissed the appeal as frivolous. See Radocesky v. Munley, 247 Fed.Appx. 863 (3d Cir.2007) (per curiam) (not precedential). Radocesky now apparently claims that Judge Munley deprived him of various constitutional rights throughout the course of that action and also violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The District Court dismissed the claim and Ra-docesky filed a timely notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We summarily affirm an order of the district court “when ‘no substantial question’ is presented by the appeal.” United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 190 n. 3 (3d Cir.2000) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

The District Court correctly determined that judges are immunized from a suit for damages for acts done in the performance of their judicial duties. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). That immunity is lost only when a judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gallas v. Sup. Ct. of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 769 (3d Cir.2000). Here, Radocesky has not alleged that Judge Munley acted in the absence of all jurisdiction. Therefore, because Radoce-sky’s appeal presents us with no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and IOP 10.6.

Official Capacity as Court Administrator of Pennsylvania Alex Bonavitacola, Honorable, Individually and in His Official Capacity as President Judge, Court of Common Pleas Esther Sylvester, Honorable, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Judge, Court of Common Pleas Family Division Vincent Fumo, Honorable, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Pennsylvania State Senator Joseph Diprimio, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Deputy Court Administrator Family Division, Domestic Relations Branch Robert Brady, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chairman, Democratic City Committee John Morris, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Secretary Treasurer of Teamsters Local Union No. 115 Geoff Gallas

211 F.3d 760 (Third Circuit, 2000)

United States v. Stanley Baptiste

223 F.3d 188 (Third Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F. App'x 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radocesky-v-munley-ca3-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack