Jill Jones-Soderman v. Paul Dasher , 424 F. App'x 181 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                            NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-3111
    ___________
    JILL JONES-SODERMAN,
    Appellant
    v.
    HONORABLE MARGARET MARY MCVEIGH; PAUL DASHER,
    PH.D; ANITA RAE MANNS, ESQ.; STEPHEN SCHIPPIONE, ESQ.;
    MICHAEL KUHNS; KAY MCCORMACK; RICHARD GRUBER; NEW
    JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DIVISION OF
    CONSUMER AFFAIRS; HONORABLE EDWIN H. STERN; JON S. CORZINE,
    in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New Jersey; NEW JERSEY
    STATE LEGISLATURE; LESLIE ARONSON, Former Executive Director
    Board of Social Work Examiners; MARILYN BAIR, Former Deputy
    Attorney General; SUSAN BERGER, Deputy Attorney General;
    JODI KRUGMAN, ESQ., Deputy Attorney General; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 08-cv-01887)
    District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    April 20, 2011
    Before: BARRY, JORDAN AND GARTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: April 25, 2011)
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    Jill Jones-Soderman appeals pro se from the order of the District Court dismissing
    her amended complaint. We will affirm.
    I.
    Jones-Soderman’s amended complaint arises from the loss of her license to
    practice social work in New Jersey. According to Jones-Soderman, Judge Margaret Mary
    McVeigh of the New Jersey Superior Court wrote a letter in 2001 to the New Jersey
    licensing agency expressing her concern with Jones-Soderman’s conduct in connection
    with a family court matter. That letter precipitated an investigation, during which the
    agency was not able to confirm that Jones-Soderman possessed a PhD as she had
    represented. The investigation led in turn to a revocation proceeding, during which
    Jones-Soderman was represented by Anita Manns. In 2003, Jones-Soderman signed a
    consent order agreeing to stop presenting herself as a doctor and to the suspension of her
    license for nine months.
    The licensing agency later received information that Jones-Soderman continued to
    practice in New Jersey during that time (and continued to hold herself out as a doctor).
    That information led to a second revocation proceeding, during which Jones-Soderman
    was represented by Stephen Schippione. The second proceeding concluded when Jones-
    Soderman signed a second consent order in 2004 agreeing to the permanent suspension of
    her New Jersey license. She later applied for reinstatement of her license, and that
    application remains pending.
    Jones-Soderman filed and amended her federal complaint in 2008, asserting
    2
    claims under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
    (“RICO”) and state law against numerous defendants whom she holds responsible for the
    loss of her license. The defendants include Judge McVeigh, assistant attorneys general
    and hearing officers involved in her current and former revocation proceedings, former
    New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, the New Jersey legislature, and other state
    employees and agencies (collectively the “state defendants”). Jones-Soderman also
    named the three private attorneys she retained to represent her during those revocation
    proceedings. In general, she alleges a conspiracy among all the defendants to deprive her
    of her license. Among the relief she requested was $13 million in damages, reinstatement
    of her license, and the enactment of certain laws protecting the rights of children.
    Defendants Manns and Schippione answered the amended complaint, but the state
    defendants moved to dismiss it on numerous grounds under Rule 12(b)(6). During
    argument on that motion, Manns and Schippione orally moved for dismissal on statute of
    limitations grounds, and we will treat their motions as ones for judgment on the pleadings
    under Rule 12(c). On June 17, 2009, the District Court granted all motions and explained
    its reasons for doing so on the record. The District Court also dismissed the action
    without prejudice as to defendant Richard Gruber (a private attorney involved in the 2001
    family court matter), whom Jones-Soderman had been unable to serve. The case
    remained pending against Michael Kuhns (Jones-Soderman’s third privately retained
    attorney), whom she had served but who had not responded to the complaint. The
    District Court informed Jones-Soderman that she could seek a default judgment against
    3
    Kuhns and told her that she would have to “decide whether you want to move forward.”
    (June 17, 2009 Trans. at 75.)1
    Nothing more of substance transpired for some ten months until the case was
    called for possible dismissal for failure to prosecute. The District Court scheduled a
    status conference and, on May 20, 2010, entered an order directing Jones-Soderman to
    file a submission in furtherance of her case by June 4, 2010, “or the complaint shall be
    dismissed in its entirety.” The District Court received nothing further from Jones-
    Soderman by that date and entered its final order dismissing the case with prejudice under
    Rule 41(b) on June 15, 2010. Jones-Soderman appeals.2
    II.
    Jones-Soderman challenges the orders of June 17, 2009, and June 15, 2010.
    In the first order, the District Court dismissed her claims against the state defendants on
    various grounds, including judicial immunity for the defendant judges, prosecutorial
    1
    On August 1, 2009, the District Court added a statement on the record that it had
    dismissed the § 1983 claims against Manns and Schippione on the additional ground that
    those privately retained attorneys were not state actors.
    2
    Defendants Manns and Schippione initially asserted crossclaims for indemnity
    and contribution against the other defendants, but when the District Court dismissed
    Jones-Soderman’s complaint and terminated the action in its entirety it effectively
    resolved those crossclaims. Cf. Owens. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 
    654 F.2d 218
    , 220 n.2
    (3d Cir. 1981) (mere grant of summary judgment for defendant/crossclaimant on
    plaintiff’s claim did not resolve crossclaim against another defendant). Thus, we have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a
    complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c). See Leamer v. Fauver, 
    288 F.3d 532
    , 534 (3d
    Cir. 2002). We review the dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. See
    Briscoe v. Klaus, 
    538 F.3d 252
    , 258 (3d Cir. 2008).
    4
    immunity for the defendant assistant attorneys general, Eleventh Amendment immunity
    for the state agencies and employees, and the statute of limitations on most of her claims.
    It also dismissed her claims against defendants Manns and Schippione on statute of
    limitations grounds, and later added the ground that they are not state actors for § 1983
    purposes.
    Jones-Soderman has not meaningfully challenged these rulings. She argues that it
    is “impossible” to determine the District Court’s reasons for dismissal because they are
    not stated in the June 17 order itself. The District Court, however, explained its reasons
    on the record. (June 17, 2009 Trans. at 61-75.) Jones-Soderman was present, and the
    District Court provided her with a copy of the transcript. (Docket No. 47.) She also
    argues that the District Court’s order does not state that it considered her opposition to
    the motions, but the District Court clearly addressed her arguments. She further makes
    generalized assertions that her pro se complaint was entitled to liberal construction and
    that various defendants acted beyond the scope of their duties, but she does not specify
    how she believed the District Court erred in construing her complaint and we discern no
    error in that regard. Finally, she argues that defendants waived their statute of limitations
    defenses by answering her amended complaint, but that is not the case. The state
    defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion instead of answering, and defendants Manns and
    Schippione pleaded the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense before orally
    moving for dismissal on that ground.
    Jones-Soderman also has not meaningfully challenged the District Court’s second
    5
    order, in which it dismissed the remainder of her complaint for failure to prosecute. The
    District Court applied the proper standard and concluded that Jones-Soderman’s
    dilatoriness, her personal responsibility therefor, and the lack of merit to her claims
    weighed in favor of dismissal. See Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 
    747 F.2d 863
    ,
    868 (3d Cir. 1984). Jones-Soderman does not argue that the District Court abused its
    discretion in so concluding. Instead, her only argument in this regard is that she actually
    complied with the District Court’s direction to file a submission by June 4, 2010. Jones-
    Soderman argues that she sent the District Court a letter on June 3 but that it did not reach
    the court until she re-sent it on June 21. Jones-Soderman’s letter does not undermine the
    District Court’s June 15 ruling, however, because it was not before the District Court at
    that time. Nor did she seek relief on the basis of these allegations under Rule 60(b) in the
    District Court. In sum, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in
    dismissing this action under Rule 41(b).
    Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-3111

Citation Numbers: 424 F. App'x 181

Judges: Barry, Garth, Jordan, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/25/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023