HONE v. SHROBA, ESQ
3:21-cv-11356
| D.N.J. | Feb 4, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Richard Hone sued guardian ad litem Laura Shroba (and unnamed individuals) alleging she lied in custody proceedings, falsified his daughter's school and medical records, and misstated his mental health.
- Complaint filed May 17, 2021; Shroba initially answered but withdrew the answer when the Court noted procedural defects.
- Hone applied to proceed in forma pauperis; the Court found his affidavit sufficient and granted IFP status.
- The Court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6) standards for frivolous and insufficient pleadings.
- The Court concluded Shroba was entitled to judicial immunity for actions taken in her guardian ad litem role and that Hone’s factual allegations were too vague to state viable § 1983 or defamation claims.
- The Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim while granting the IFP application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP application | Cannot pay filing fee; disabled, limited income | No meaningful opposition recorded | IFP granted; affidavit satisfied § 1915(a) |
| Whether guardian ad litem is a state actor under § 1983 / judicial immunity | Shroba’s court filings and testimony deprived Hone of civil rights | Guardian ad litem performing judicial duties is absolutely immune | Shroba immune for acts within her judicial role; § 1983 claim barred |
| Defamation (New Jersey law) | Shroba lied about Hone’s mental health and submitted false reports | Denies allegations; acts privileged/immune as part of judicial process | Plaintiff failed to plead specific false statements, publication, or fault; defamation claim insufficient |
| Pleading sufficiency / dismissal standard | Allegations of "lies" and record errors suffice | Allegations are conclusory, lack factual detail | Complaint is implausible and conclusory; dismissed with prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (standard for frivolous claims under § 1915)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility and conclusory allegations)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (limits and exceptions to judicial immunity)
- Gardner by Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1989) (guardian ad litem entitled to absolute immunity when integral to judicial process)
- Rieco v. Hebe, [citation="633 F. App'x 567"] (3d Cir.) (guardian ad litem absolute immunity under § 1983)
- Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006) (judicial immunity principles applied)
- Schneyder v. Smith, 653 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2011) (elements of a § 1983 claim)
- DeAngelis v. Hill, 180 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2004) (elements of a defamation claim under New Jersey law)
- Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (pro se pleadings must still allege sufficient facts)