Robert J. Kondrat v. Joseph E. O'Neill Joseph Donofrio Edward A. Cox

815 F.2d 78, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18013, 1987 WL 36390
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 17, 1987
Docket86-3263
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 815 F.2d 78 (Robert J. Kondrat v. Joseph E. O'Neill Joseph Donofrio Edward A. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert J. Kondrat v. Joseph E. O'Neill Joseph Donofrio Edward A. Cox, 815 F.2d 78, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18013, 1987 WL 36390 (6th Cir. 1987).

Opinion

815 F.2d 78

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Robert J. KONDRAT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joseph E. O'NEILL; Joseph Donofrio; Edward A. Cox,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-3263.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 17, 1987.

Before MARTIN and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Appellant appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After an examination of the record and briefs, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appellant alleges that the district court erred in construing his complaint of entrapment by three Ohio court of appeals judges as a request to review a state court decision.

The district court properly construed the complaint and properly dismissed it. A district court cannot review a state court decision. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

Entrapment is not a civil cause of action; entrapment is only a defense to a criminal action. U.S. v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1109 (6th Cir.1984). Furthermore, judges are absolutely immune to a suit for damages for actions committed within their jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-357 (1978).

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(d)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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

Related

Scott v. Albright
E.D. Kentucky, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
815 F.2d 78, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18013, 1987 WL 36390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-j-kondrat-v-joseph-e-oneill-joseph-donofrio-edward-a-cox-ca6-1987.