Martin v. Kline , 105 F. App'x 367 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2004 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    7-19-2004
    Martin v. Kline
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 03-4408
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
    Recommended Citation
    "Martin v. Kline" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 489.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/489
    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 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 03-4408
    JAM ES L. MARTIN, et al.
    Appellants
    v.
    SAMUEL L. KLINE, et al.
    ____________
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    (D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-00922 )
    District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III
    ____________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    July 16, 2004
    Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
    Filed July 19, 2004
    ____________
    OPINION
    WEIS, Circuit Judge.
    From the parties’ briefs and appendix, notable for their lack of specific
    information, we glean the following. Plaintiffs were litigants in an Orphan’s Court
    proceeding of some nature in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County,
    1
    Pennsylvania. Defendant, Judge Kline, presided. Apparently, after a hearing concluded,
    plaintiffs called alleged errors in the transcript to the attention of Judge Kline and
    defendant Lisa M. Martel, the court reporter.
    Plaintiffs contend that their objections to the transcript were denied by the
    judge and defendant Martel. Plaintiffs took an appeal from the ruling at the hearing
    (whatever it was) to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which decided in favor of
    plaintiffs on the merits. As part of their appeal, plaintiffs apparently cited the refusal of
    Judge Kline to correct the transcript. We do not know from the material presented
    whether the Superior Court ruled on that contention or even discussed it.
    Plaintiffs filed suit in the District Court for the Middle District of
    Pennsylvania, claiming that Defendants had violated their First Amendment rights by
    their mishandling of the court transcript. Plaintiffs asserted that the Orphan’s Court
    matter was inactive for two years before arguments were heard in the District Court in the
    case now before us. The District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter
    jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 
    263 U.S. 413
    (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 
    460 U.S. 462
    (1983),
    and dismissed the case.
    We conclude that Rooker-Feldman is not applicable here because the relief
    plaintiffs seek could not affect the favorable judgment that they obtained from the
    Superior Court. See Parkview Assoc. P’ship v. City of Lebanon, 
    225 F.3d 321
    , 325-326
    2
    (3d Cir. 2000). The suit filed against the judge and the court reporter does not, so far as
    we can determine, require any alteration of the state court judgment. Rather, the
    complaint sets out an independent action seeking judgment against the defendants for
    “fees, costs, attorney’s fees, emotional distress and such other relief as the court deems
    appropriate,” and does not seek modification of the Superior Court’s ruling.
    We conclude, nonetheless, that judgment must be entered for the
    defendants. As the District Court noted in footnote 14 of its opinion, the defendants
    would be entitled to judgment based on judicial immunity in the instance of Judge Kline,
    and quasi-judicial immunity with respect to the court reporter, Lisa M. Martel. See Gallas
    v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 
    211 F.3d 760
    , 769 (3d Cir. 2000); Marcedes v.
    Barrett, 
    453 F.3d 391
    (3d Cir. 1971).
    The claims that plaintiffs present in this suit may more suitably be presented
    to the Pennsylvania judicial disciplinary system.
    Accordingly, the order of dismissal will be vacated and judgment will be
    entered in favor of defendants.
    3