Weldon v. Caldwell , 247 F. App'x 356 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-19-2007
Weldon v. Caldwell
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1487
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Weldon v. Caldwell" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 417.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/417
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.
BLD-346 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1487
______________________________________
ROBERT C. WELDON,
Appellant
v.
DISTRICT COURT
WILLIAM W. CALDWELL
______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-00243)
District Judge: Richard P. Conaboy
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
August 16, 2007
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND VANANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: September 19, 2007)
____________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Robert C. Weldon, a Pennsylvania prisoner, 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, Weldon alleged that Judge William W. Caldwell, who is
presiding over a separate civil rights action brought by Weldon, improperly dismissed his
motion for summary judgment to “advance the private interests of the defendants.”
Weldon sought monetary damages and noted that “the rest of what [he] want[s] [the court]
to do for [him] will be discussed at the appropriate time!” Concluding that Judge Caldwell
is immune from suit, the District Court dismissed Weldon’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). Weldon appealed.
Weldon’s claims against Judge Caldwell 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 (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 Weldon complains of –
dismissing his motion for summary judgment – was performed by Judge Caldwell in his
official capacity, Judge Caldwell is entitled to judicial immunity. See Gallas v. Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir. 2000).
Having found no merit to this appeal, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Weldon’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
________________________
2