Zia Shaikh v. Madelin Einbinder
21-3115
| 3rd Cir. | May 3, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Zia Shaikh, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued several New Jersey family‑court judges in federal court alleging violations arising from family‑court proceedings.
- District Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed it as barred by judicial immunity, and denied a preliminary injunction; Shaikh was given leave to amend.
- Shaikh filed an amended and then a second amended complaint reiterating prior allegations and asserting he would only challenge "non‑judicial and criminal actions" by the judges.
- The District Court again dismissed the second amended complaint on screening, concluding the claims arose from judicial acts within the judges’ jurisdiction; it denied injunctive relief as moot.
- Shaikh appealed, arguing the Mireles exceptions to judicial immunity applied, the dismissal was premature before defendants raised immunity, and that he would suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the judges were entitled to immunity, the screening dismissal was proper under § 1915, and Shaikh’s injunction arguments were insufficiently developed and barred as to judicial‑acts relief absent a violated declaratory decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judges are immune from § 1983 damages for the challenged acts | Judges’ actions were nonjudicial or committed in complete absence of jurisdiction (Mireles exception) | Actions were judicial in nature and within jurisdiction | Immunity applies; Mireles exceptions do not apply |
| Whether district court properly dismissed on screening before defendants raised immunity | Dismissal was premature because defendants hadn’t yet asserted immunity | Court may dismiss IFP suits on screening when claim seeks relief barred by immunity under § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Screening dismissal was proper under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) |
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief was warranted | Shaikh would suffer irreparable harm and sought injunctions (e.g., vacate bench warrant, alter custody/support rulings) | Injunctive relief against judges for judicial acts is barred absent a violated declaratory decree; plaintiff failed to specify relief or develop argument | Injunction denied; arguments undeveloped and relief barred as to judicial acts absent declaratory decree |
| Whether pro se status or liberal pleading alters outcome | Pro se status requires liberal construction of filings | Liberal construction does not excuse failure to develop issues or plead an available basis for relief | Pro se lenity does not save inadequately pleaded or ill‑developed claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (establishes exceptions to judicial immunity: nonjudicial acts and acts in complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity protects judges for judicial acts)
- Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (applying judicial immunity principles in this circuit)
- Laborers' Int'l Union v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 1994) (brief/undeveloped appellate arguments need not be considered)
- Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 1993) (appellants must present and develop issues in opening brief)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Barna v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Panther Valley Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2017) (court may refuse to consider ill‑developed appellate arguments)