John Marchisotto v. Margaret Goodzeit
20-1870
| 3rd Cir. | Aug 4, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff John F. Marchisotto filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging state-court probate proceedings concerning his deceased father’s estate; defendants included state judges, the Somerset County Surrogate, the estate executrix (Debra Canova), and her attorney (Louis P. Lepore).
- The District Court consolidated a December 2019 action with the May 2019 action, added additional defendants, and gave Marchisotto a May 5, 2020 deadline to seek leave to amend to incorporate consolidated parties or notify the court of an intent to appeal.
- Marchisotto did not move for leave to amend; he repeatedly filed notices of appeal and motions for injunctive relief instead. After the deadline passed, the District Court dismissed the consolidated defendants with prejudice and denied pending injunctive requests as moot.
- The District Court granted motions to dismiss Judge Margaret Goodzeit (based on judicial immunity) and dismissed claims against Canova and Lepore (holding they were not state actors under § 1983); it also affirmed a Magistrate Judge’s order that denied disqualification of Lepore, struck amended complaints, and denied a TRO.
- The Magistrate Judge relied in part on an Office of Attorney Ethics investigation that found no misconduct by Lepore and that he was not required to carry professional-liability insurance as a sole practitioner.
- The Third Circuit exercised de novo review where appropriate and abuse-of-discretion review for denials of amendment and injunctive relief, and affirmed the District Court’s judgment in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity for Judge Goodzeit | Goodzeit abused authority, lacked impartiality, engaged in misconduct in probate rulings | Judicial acts are protected by judicial immunity unless taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction | Dismissed: Goodzeit immune; Marchisotto did not allege non-judicial acts or lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Canova and Lepore are state actors under § 1983 | Canova and Lepore committed fraud, perjury, financial crimes in the probate matter and thus are liable under § 1983 | As private actors (executrix and attorney) they did not act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes | Dismissed: Not state actors; amendment would be futile |
| Validity of Magistrate Judge’s orders (denial of disqualification, TRO, striking amended complaints) | Disqualification and injunctive relief were warranted based on alleged misconduct and insurance issues; amended complaints should remain | OAE investigation found no misconduct; TRO duplicative and failed to show clear, imminent harm; striking was procedurally managed and plaintiff was allowed to amend by deadline | Magistrate’s orders affirmed: denial of disqualification and TRO proper; strike/amendment decisions not an abuse of discretion |
| Dismissal of consolidated defendants after failure to amend by deadline | District Court lacked authority to dismiss certain defendants sua sponte (argued re: Surrogate Bruno) | Court gave explicit notice and deadline; dismissal permitted when plaintiff fails to amend and claims fail to state a claim | Dismissed with prejudice: Court acted within authority; failure to timely amend/raise arguments forfeited some challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (establishes judicial immunity for judicial acts absent clear absence of jurisdiction)
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (private defense attorney not a state actor under § 1983 simply by being an officer of the court)
- Leshko v. Servis, 423 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2005) (private actors are state actors only where a close nexus makes private conduct attributable to the State)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (leave to amend may be denied as futile when claims cannot be saved)
- Winer Family Trust v. Queen, 503 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for denial of preliminary injunction)
- Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848 (3d Cir. 1992) (jurisdictional considerations where appeal follows a dismissal)
- Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 requires conduct by a state actor)