Ronald Bass, Sr. v. State of New Jersey
689 F. App'x 715
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Ronald Bass appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his amended federal complaint challenging termination of his parental rights after a New Jersey family-court proceeding.
- On prior appeal this Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to allow consideration of Bass’s claims about misconduct preceding or resulting in the state-court judgment.
- On remand Bass filed a (second-amended) complaint alleging: psychologist Eric Kirschner lied at the family hearing; State defendants submitted falsified reports and failed to investigate; and private counsel Gwendolyn Austin provided ineffective representation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court dismissed the complaint in full for multiple reasons (including Rooker–Feldman, litigation privilege, statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim) and denied Bass’s motions for appointment of counsel and reconsideration.
- On appeal Bass principally challenges the denial of counsel and reasserts his allegations; the Third Circuit affirms the dismissal and denial of counsel, and treats any state-law malpractice claim against Austin as dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over claims that effectively seek review of the state family-court termination | Bass seeks exclusion of evidence from the family court and remand for family unification (i.e., de facto appeal) | Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state-court judgments | Dismissal affirmed as to claims that seek federal review of the state-court termination under Rooker–Feldman |
| Whether Bass stated plausible federal claims (42 U.S.C. § 1983, ADA, etc.) based on alleged falsified evidence and discrimination | Bass alleges false reports, discrimination, and conspiracy to deny due process | Defendants contend allegations are conclusory, lack factual support, and fail to show conspiracy or falsehoods as required to state a claim | Court affirms dismissal for failure to state a plausible federal claim; leave to amend would be futile |
| Applicability of defenses (New Jersey litigation privilege; statute of limitations) as grounds for dismissal on the complaint face | Bass disputes these defenses implicitly by alleging misconduct | Defendants invoked litigation privilege and statute of limitations to bar claims | Court questioned whether those defenses are resolvable on the complaint but concluded dismissal was proper on the independent ground of failure to state a claim |
| Denial of appointment of counsel for Bass | Bass sought counsel to pursue his claims | Court applied Tabron factors in denying appointment; defendants argued no entitlement to appointed counsel in civil suit | Denial of counsel affirmed; no abuse of discretion by the magistrate/district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review final state-court judgments)
- D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (federal jurisdiction doctrine limiting review of state-court adjudications)
- Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir.) (standards for Rooker–Feldman analysis)
- Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard and limits on resolving certain defenses at dismissal)
- Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir.) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil actions)