Nabil Mikhail v. Jolie Kahn
572 F. App'x 68
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Mikhail sues in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false child-abuse allegations and discrimination in connection with his wife’s Protection From Abuse filing, divorce, and custody proceedings.
- Defendants include Mikhail’s wife Jolie Kahn, her attorneys, court-appointed custody evaluators, a reunification therapist, visitation supervisors, a nonprofit attorney who provided an affidavit, and nine Pennsylvania judges.
- The District Court dismissed most claims with prejudice and some without prejudice, deeming the court lacked authority to grant the requested relief.
- Mikhail appeals, jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and the panel considers summary affirmance under Third Circuit rules.
- The court will summarily affirm, holding several defendants immune or non-actionable and rejecting conspiracy claims, with supplemental jurisdiction declined for state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the PA judges immune from § 1983 damages? | Mikhail contends judges acted under color of state law to infringe rights. | Judges are absolutely immune for judicial act-based damages. | Yes; judges have absolute immunity for damages. |
| Do custody evaluators Lustig and Sobel enjoy quasi-judicial immunity? | Mikhail claims evaluators' actions violated rights in the custody process. | Evaluators are integral to judicial process and immune. | Yes; Lustig and Sobel are absolutely immune. |
| Are Kahn and private actors state actors; can conspiracy claims survive? | Alleges private actors conspired with state actors to deprive access to child. | Private parties not shown to be state actors or conspirators with plausibly pled facts. | No; no viable state-actor conspiracy pled against them. |
| Does 18 U.S.C. § 242 permit private prosecutions and permit relief here? | Counts seek private criminal-like relief for § 242 violations. | § 242 does not authorize private prosecutions or private rights of action. | Yes; § 242 does not authorize private actions. |
| Should the court exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissals? | State-law claims should be entertained; federal court should proceed. | District court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction. | Declined; supplemental jurisdiction not exercised. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (absolute judicial immunity for damages)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (absolute immunity for judicial acts)
- Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2000) (immunity extends to evaluative functions aiding judicial decision-making)
- Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2006) (quasi-judicial immunity for evaluators assisting court findings)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards; mere conclusory statements fail)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard; threadbare recitals fail)
- Great Western Mining v. Fox Rothschild, 615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2010) (conspiracy allegations must show plausible agreement)
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) (mere resort to courts not conspiracy)
- Parkview Associates Partnership v. City of Lebanon, 321 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman; limits on reviewing state judgments)
- Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2001) (appeals under LAR/I.O.P. may affirm on alternative grounds)