-
Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-27-2007 Shemonsky v. Thomas Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3761 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Shemonsky v. Thomas" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 185. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/185 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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. ALD-48 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-3761 ___________ MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY, Appellant v. JUDGE JOHN J. THOMAS; STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-01667) District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 November 8, 2007 Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 27, 2007) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM Pro se appellant, Michael Shemonsky, appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his in forma 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. Shemonsky 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. § 1983when they act in a judicial capacity. See Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (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). 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 07-3761
Citation Numbers: 383 F. App'x 687
Filed Date: 11/27/2007
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023