Shemonsky v. Thomas

Third Circuit

Shemonsky v. Thomas

383 F. App'x 687

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 27, 2007

Docket07-3761

StatusUnpublished

This text of 383 F. App'x 687 (Shemonsky v. Thomas) 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

Shemonsky v. Thomas, 383 F. App'x 687 (3d Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant, Michael Shemonsky, appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his informa pauperis civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that complaint, Shemonsky alleged that Judge John J. Thomas, who presided over appellant’s bankruptcy proceeding, improperly dismissed that action. Shemon-sky sought unspecified monetary damages. Concluding that Judge Thomas is immune from suit, the District Court dismissed Shemonsky’s complaint. This timely appeal followed.

The District Court was correct to conclude that Shemonsky’s claims against Judge Thomas are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. It is‘ a well-established principle that judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they act in a judicial capacity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted) (“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’ ”). Because the act that Shemonsky complains of—dismissal of his bankruptcy action—was performed by Judge Thomas in his official capacity, Judge Thomas is entitled to judicial immunity. See Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir.2000). As the District Court properly advised, should Shemonsky wish to challenge the dismissal of the bankruptcy action referenced in the complaint,' the appropriate remedy is an appeal.

Having found no merit to this appeal, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant, Michael Shemonsky, appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his informa pauperis civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that complaint, Shemonsky alleged that Judge John J. Thomas, who presided over appellant’s bankruptcy proceeding, improperly dismissed that action. Shemon-sky sought unspecified monetary damages. Concluding that Judge Thomas is immune from suit, the District Court dismissed Shemonsky’s complaint. This timely appeal followed.

The District Court was correct to conclude that Shemonsky’s claims against Judge Thomas are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. It is‘ a well-established principle that judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they act in a judicial capacity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted) (“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’ ”). Because the act that Shemonsky complains of—dismissal of his bankruptcy action—was performed by Judge Thomas in his official capacity, Judge Thomas is entitled to judicial immunity. See Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir.2000). As the District Court properly advised, should Shemonsky wish to challenge the dismissal of the bankruptcy action referenced in the complaint,' the appropriate remedy is an appeal.

Having found no merit to this appeal, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 F. App'x 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shemonsky-v-thomas-ca3-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack