Elizabeth Harvey v. Peter Loftus
505 F. App'x 87
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Harvey, proceeding pro se, filed a December 2010 complaint amended March 2011 with three claims against Loftus, Ayer, Munley, Price, and Does 1-5 arising from a related civil case.
- First claim alleged malpractice by Loftus for failing to meet professional obligations, violating Harvey's due process and equal protection rights.
- Second claim alleged a conspiracy by Ayer, Loftus, Munley, and Price to force Harvey to accept a settlement to sabotage her trial, and third claimed deprivation of constitutional rights and emotional distress under Bivens.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Harvey waived objections to dismissing claims against Ayer and Price on May 23, 2012.
- On June 8, 2012 the District Court dismissed claims 2 and 3 with prejudice; claim 1 was dismissed as a pendent state-law claim lacking supplemental jurisdiction.
- Harvey sought more time and Rule 60(b)(3) relief; the District Court denied the motion on June 19, 2012, and Harvey appealed on August 14, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Munley immune from Harvey's conspiracy/Bivens claims? | Harvey alleges conspiracy and Bivens claims against Munley. | Munley is absolutely immune in his judicial capacity. | Munley immune; claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Did Harvey state a plausible conspiracy claim against Loftus? | Harvey pleads specific facts of agreement among defendants. | Allegations are mere conclusions without supporting facts. | Conspiracy claim properly dismissed for lack of plausibility. |
| Was the Bivens claim against Loftus barred by the conspiracy ruling? | Bivens claim rests on the conspiracy theory. | Conspiracy claim fails, so Bivens claim fails as well. | Bivens claim against Loftus dismissed with prejudice. |
| Did the District Court abuse sua sponte by declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law malpractice claim? | State-law claim should proceed under supplemental jurisdiction. | Court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction. | Affirmed decline of supplemental jurisdiction. |
| Was Harvey entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) for alleged district-court misconduct? | District Court engaged in fraud/misconduct affecting her case. | No fraud; no extraordinary circumstances; relief inappropriate. | Rule 60(b)(3) relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility requires facially plausible claims)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (S. Ct. 1985) (judicial immunity for acts performed in office)
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (S. Ct. 1980) (immunity extends to acts done in furtherance of a conspiracy)
- Gallas v. Sup. Ct. of Pa., 211 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2000) (judicial immunity for monetary damages under § 1983)
- Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2001) (standard for summary affirmance review)
- Budget Blinds of NJ, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 60(b) motions)
- Lorenzo v. Griffith, 12 F.3d 23 (3d Cir. 1993) (scope of Rule 60(b) relief)
- McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (harmless error; standards for relief impact)
- Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331 (3d Cir. 1989) (statute of limitations considerations in pleading claims)
- Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138 (9th Cir. 1993) ( Rule 60(b)(6) extraordinary circumstances)
- Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 1999) (extraordinary hardship in Rule 60(b) context)