SHAIKH v. EINBINDER
3:20-cv-02540
D.N.J.Nov 25, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Zia Shaikh filed suit against five New Jersey state court judges who presided over or were connected to his family-court dispute dating back to 2014.
- Shaikh sought injunctive relief (an emergent motion) to prevent certain judges from presiding over his state family cases.
- The district court granted in forma pauperis status and therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Plaintiff’s filings primarily challenged judicial decisions, competence, and motives of the named judges.
- The District Court concluded that judges are protected by absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts and that Shaikh’s allegations did not overcome that immunity.
- The Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety and denied the preliminary-injunction motion for failure to satisfy the required elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shaikh may sue judges for actions taken in family-court proceedings | Judges erred, acted incompetently, and were motivated by improper reasons; seeks relief and disqualification | Actions constitute judicial acts entitled to absolute immunity; claims are barred | Dismissed: absolute judicial immunity bars suit against judges for judicial acts |
| Whether plaintiff’s complaint survives screening under §1915(e)(2) / Rule 12(b)(6) | Pleading alleges sufficient facts to show judicial liability and warrant relief | Complaint fails to state a plausible claim and is legally deficient | Dismissed for failure to state a claim under Twombly/Iqbal standards during §1915 screening |
| Whether judicial immunity is overcome by allegations of malice or corruption | Malice/corruption allegations remove immunity | Allegations of error, maliciousness, or excess of authority do not defeat absolute immunity | Denied: malice/corruption allegations insufficient to overcome judicial immunity (Mireles framework) |
| Whether a preliminary injunction to disqualify judges is warranted | Emergency injunction needed to stop judges from presiding over ongoing family matters | Injunction elements not met; underlying claims barred by immunity | Denied: preliminary-injunction standard not satisfied; claims meritless due to immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual matter showing claim is plausible)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity applies to judicial acts; immunity overcome in only narrow circumstances)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (judges entitled to absolute immunity for judicial actions)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity remains despite error, malice, or excess of authority)
- Dongon v. Banar, [citation="363 F. App'x 153"] (3d Cir. 2010) (judges entitled to absolute immunity for actions in judicial capacity)
- Gromek v. Maenza, [citation="614 F. App'x 42"] (3d Cir. 2015) (allegations of malice do not vitiate judicial immunity)
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (elements required for preliminary injunction)