MCGILLVARY v. SCUTARI
1:23-cv-22605
D.N.J.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Caleb L. McGillvary filed suit against several federal judges (O'Hearn, Bumb, Arleo, Waldor) and former U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, alleging wide-ranging conspiracies involving RICO violations and judicial misconduct linked to a supposed “Bid Rigging Syndicate.”
- The core factual allegations rest on claims that Menendez, as part of this syndicate, influenced judicial appointments and that these judges used their authority to further the syndicate’s aims, which purportedly included interfering with McGillvary’s cases, particularly his habeas petition and other federal court proceedings in the District of New Jersey.
- McGillvary asserted claims under RICO and Bivens against the federal judicial defendants, relying primarily on information and belief rather than concrete factual support.
- The federal defendants—including the judges and Menendez—sought dismissal under various grounds, including lack of standing, judicial immunity, and failures to state a claim under RICO and Bivens standards.
- The court had previously dismissed similar claims against co-defendants in the same matter, and the present motions presented no new or materially different arguments or facts.
- The court found oral argument unnecessary and granted the federal defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice, denying leave to amend for futility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO Claims/Standing | Defendants conspired in a bid rigging/money laundering scheme that injured Plaintiff. | Plaintiff lacks standing; no direct injury; speculative and unsupported claims. | Dismissed; McGillvary lacks standing under RICO. |
| Judicial Immunity | Judicial acts were part of conspiracy, not protected. | Immunity applies to all judicial acts within jurisdiction. | Judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts. |
| Bivens Claims | Claims under First, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments for actions against Plaintiff. | Bivens should not be extended; no recognized context; immunity. | Dismissed; no viable Bivens action recognized. |
| Leave to Amend | Amendment could cure deficiencies. | Amendment would be futile. | Denied; amendment would be futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial officers have absolute immunity from suits based on judicial acts)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity applies unless actions taken in clear absence of jurisdiction)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (created limited implied damages remedy for constitutional violations by federal officials)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (recognized Bivens claims in new context—failure to provide medical care to prisoners)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (Bivens action for gender discrimination)