ROSS, SR. v. ESSEX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
2:23-cv-03122
| D.N.J. | Jul 31, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Harold Anthony Ross, Sr. filed a pro se civil complaint naming six New Jersey Superior Court judges (Essex County) and one attorney, alleging harms from state-court proceedings between April 2021 and February 2023.
- He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and pleaded broadly (suggesting § 1983) but alleged largely state-law torts (libel, parental alienation, interference with parental rights) and requested monetary and injunctive relief (millions in damages; revocation/expungement of restraining orders and a default divorce judgment; court-paid reunification counseling).
- The district court granted in forma pauperis status and therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The complaint contained no factual allegations tying specific defendants to specific wrongful acts or rulings; it consisted principally of legal conclusions and a list of injuries and remedies sought.
- The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous, but did so without prejudice and gave Ross 30 days to submit a proposed amended complaint; the opinion warned about judicial immunity and that appeals, not suits, are the proper remedy for erroneous state-court rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading sufficiency under §1915(e)(2)(B) / Rule 12(b)(6) | Ross alleges judges acted under color of law and lists injuries and legal conclusions | Complaint lacks any factual allegations describing who did what, when, and how; therefore fails Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal plausibility | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; pleading is conclusory and insufficient |
| Propriety of asserting § 1983-like claims against state judges | Ross implicitly asserts federal claims against judges for actions in state proceedings | Judges are alleged only to have rendered state-court rulings; the complaint does not identify federal-law violations | Court observed such claims face serious obstacles and are not adequately pleaded |
| Judicial immunity / review of state-court rulings in federal court | Ross seeks reversal/expungement and damages for state-court decisions | Judicial immunity protects judges from suit for judicial acts; errors in state court are remedied by appeal, not federal suit | Court emphasized judicial immunity and that federal courts will not substitute for state appellate review |
| Leave to amend / dismissal without prejudice | Ross seeks significant relief and may be able to replead facts | Court may allow amendment but requires a factual account of events and specific acts by each defendant | Complaint dismissed without prejudice; Ross given 30 days to submit an amended complaint with detailed factual allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes the "plausibility" pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applies Twombly to require factual allegations supporting legal conclusions)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (recognizes judicial immunity for judicial acts)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (IFP screening under §1915 applies to non-prisoner indigent plaintiffs)
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (dismissal standard under §1915(e)(2)(B) parallels Rule 12(b)(6))
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 2019) (pro se complaints still must meet facial plausibility requirements)