Span v. Flaherty , 271 F. App'x 172 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-28-2008
Span v. Flaherty
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3848
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Span v. Flaherty" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1363.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1363
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-53 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-3848
TERENCE J. SPAN,
Appellant
v.
HONORABLE JOHN P. FLAHERTY; HONORABLE STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, SR.;
HONORABLE RALPH J. CAPPY; HONORABLE RONALD D. CASTILLE;
HONORABLE RUSSELL M. NIGRO; HONORABLE SANDRA SCHULTZ
NEWMAN; HONORABLE THOMAS G. SAYLOR; HONORABLE ZYGMONT A.
PINES; SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-01145)
District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and IOP 10.6
November 16, 2007
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND ROTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Opinion Filed: March 28, 2008)
OPINION
-1-
PER CURIAM
This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of Terence Span’s complaint.
For the following reasons, we will dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
In 1998, Span filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Jack Mannheimer, a
psychiatrist, and Jefferson Hospital treated him for mental illness without his consent.
See Span v. Mannheimer, W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 98-cv-00619. On September 21, 1998, the
District Court dismissed Span’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Span did not
appeal. Span then filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
again naming Mannheimer and Jefferson Hospital as defendants. Span’s complaint was
dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Pennsylvania
Superior Court affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Span’s petition for
allowance of appeal on September 4, 2001.
On August 27, 2003, Span again filed a § 1983 complaint in the Western District.
In his complaint, Span alleged that the named defendants, all Pennsylvania Supreme
Court Justices, violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they denied his
petition for allowance of appeal without first ordering a copy of the record from the
Pennsylvania Superior Court. The District Court dismissed his complaint. Span
appealed, and we affirmed. See Span v. Flaherty. 153 Fed. Appx. 523 (3d Cir.
2005)(non-precedential).
On August 21, 2007, Span filed the underlying complaint, also against the Chief
-2-
Justice and Associate Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, contending that his
rights were violated in the 2003 District Court action because in that case the Supreme
Court members were represented by a staff attorney from the Administrative Office of the
Pennsylvania Courts. Span contends that this representation was improper and violated
his rights because the Supreme Court members were sued in their “individual capacities,”
not in their “official capacities.” The District Court dismissed Span’s complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(i)-(ii).
We agree with the District Court that Span has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Span’s distinction between the defendants’ individual and official
capacity has no merit. This Court has previously determined that Span’s complaint
against the Pennsylvania Supreme Court members consists entirely of allegations
regarding the actions taken by the defendants in their judicial capacity. See Span 135
Fed. Appx. at 526. Moreover, we know of no authority supporting Span’s claim that
state-funded representation of judicial officials in the previous litigation violated his
constitutional rights. Therefore, even the most liberal construction of Span’s complaint
fails to allege any violation of federal or state law.
In sum, because Span’s appeal lacks arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
-3-