HONE v. EINBINDER
3:21-cv-12995-MAS-DEA
D.N.J.Feb 4, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Richard Hone sued three New Jersey state judges (Einbinder, Baxter, Lynch‑Ford) arising from a state‑court custody dispute, alleging they conspired to deprive him of civil rights by delaying a hearing.
- Hone alleges Judge Lynch‑Ford initially mis‑scheduled a hearing (May vs. June) and, after he refiled, scheduled the hearing a month late, which he claims denied him due process and violated court rules and a New Jersey statute.
- The complaint does not identify any specific acts by Judges Einbinder or Baxter or any communications linking them to the alleged delay.
- Hone filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the District Court found his IFP submission met 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) requirements and granted it.
- The Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice: judicial immunity bars the suit against the judges, and the allegations fail to state a plausible conspiracy or any actionable claim against Einbinder and Baxter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP should be granted | Hone says he is disabled, has minimal income and cannot pay fees | N/A (court reviews application) | IFP granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) |
| Whether judges are immune from suit | Hone contends judges can be liable for official acts (cites Pulliam) | Judges invoke absolute judicial immunity for acts within judicial capacity | Dismissed: judicial immunity applies; no facts showing non‑judicial acts or lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether complaint states a claim against Einbinder and Baxter | Hone alleges a conspiracy among the three judges to deprive his rights by delaying the hearing | Defendants argue no factual allegations show any role by Einbinder or Baxter | Dismissed: complaint fails to plead any conduct by Einbinder/Baxter and conspiracy claim implausible (single judge cannot conspire alone) |
Key Cases Cited
- Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006) (discusses judicial immunity for judges)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (identifies exceptions to judicial immunity: non‑judicial acts or absence of jurisdiction)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judge immune even if action was erroneous, malicious, or exceeded authority)
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) (liability may attach where judge acts beyond jurisdiction)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (standard for dismissing frivolous claims under § 1915)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (pro se pleadings must still allege sufficient facts)
- Barnes Foundation v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 242 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2001) (elements for civil‑rights conspiracy claim)
- Jurtowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2018) (conspiracy requires two or more persons to act together)