Brandon Fake v. City of Philadelphia
704 F. App'x 214
3rd Cir.
2017

Background

  • Pro se plaintiff Brandon L. Fake sued 44 defendants in 2016 alleging a long-running conspiracy arising from divorce, support, and custody proceedings in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas beginning in 2004.
  • The District Court granted in forma pauperis status and screened the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), dismissing some claims with prejudice and allowing amendment.
  • After two amended complaints, the District Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice as failing to state viable § 1983/§ 1985/§ 242 claims, concluding municipal and judicial-defendant claims were deficient or barred by immunity.
  • Fake appealed, arguing (1) improper dismissal with prejudice without discovery/hearing; (2) Eleventh Amendment immunity wrongly applied to the Court of Common Pleas amid alleged fraud; (3) mischaracterization of the Court of Common Pleas; (4) judicial immunity improperly applied because judges acted criminally/without jurisdiction; and (5) statute-of-limitations dismissal improper because of ongoing fraud.
  • The Third Circuit reviewed de novo under the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard and affirmed, holding the complaint failed to plead plausible claims and that judicial and state immunity barred relief.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice without discovery/hearing was improper Fake: dismissal before discovery/hearing denied fair process Court: screening under §1915(e) functions like Rule 12(b)(6); no entitlement to discovery where complaint fails Rule 8/Iqbal Affirmed — no discovery or hearing required because complaint was deficient
Whether Eleventh Amendment bars suit against Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas given alleged fraud Fake: state court engaged in fraud so immunity should not apply Defendants: Pennsylvania hasn’t waived immunity; §1983 doesn’t abrogate Eleventh Amendment; court not a "person" under §1983 Affirmed — Eleventh Amendment bars suit; Court of Common Pleas not liable under §1983
Whether judicial defendants lose absolute immunity due to alleged criminal/ultra vires acts Fake: judges acted criminally/without jurisdiction or administratively outside immunity Defendants: judicial immunity covers judicial acts even if erroneous, malicious, or excess of authority unless acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction Affirmed — judicial immunity applies; alleged procedural errors do not strip immunity
Whether statute-of-limitations defense improperly applied because fraud upon the court tolled limitations Fake: ongoing fraud on the court makes SOL inapplicable Defendants: even if timely, claims fail due to immunity and pleading defects Affirmed — immunity and pleading failures dispose of claims despite SOL argument

Key Cases Cited

  • Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for §1915(e) dismissals)
  • Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77 (3d Cir. 2011) (accept factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
  • Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd., 292 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2002) (construing complaints favorably to plaintiff)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show more than speculative claims)
  • Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
  • Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (pro se plaintiffs must still plead sufficient facts)
  • Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states and state entities are not "persons" under §1983)
  • Benn v. First Judicial Dist., 426 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2005) (Eleventh Amendment and state judicial immunity principles)
  • Capogrosso v. Sup. Ct. of N.J., 588 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2009) (judicial immunity for judicial acts even if erroneous or malicious)
  • Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (scope of judicial immunity)
  • Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2002) (scheduling is a judicial function covered by immunity)
  • Nystedt v. Nigro, 700 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2012) (favoritism/ex parte communications do not defeat judicial immunity)
  • Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006) (limits on injunctive relief under §1983 amendments)
  • Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2010) (pleading requirements for conspiratorial agreement)
  • Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
Read the full case