Thomas M. BOLICK, Appellant v. Honorable Robert B. SACAVAGE; Honorable Anne E. Thompson.
No. 14-4427.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Opinion filed: July 13, 2015.
175
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 6, 2015.
Mary E. Butler, Esq., A. Taylor Williams, Esq., Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Martha Gale, Esq., Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Philadelphia, PA, for Honorable Robert B. Sacavage; Honorable Anne E. Thompson.
Before: FISHER, KRAUSE and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION *
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Bolick appeals pro se from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania‘s (“the District Court“) September 2014 order dismissing his civil rights complaint, and from that court‘s October 2014 order denying his motions for reconsideration and recusal. For the reasons that follow, we will modify the September 2014 order in part, affirm that order as modified, and affirm the October 2014 order.
I.
Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the background of this case, we discuss that background only to the extent necessary to resolve this appeal. In 1981, the Court of Common*
Bolick appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which concluded that Judge Sacavage‘s June 2007 and November 2007 orders were legal nullities because the time in which to modify the May 2007 order denying Bolick‘s motion to vacate/strike had expired before the June 2007 order was entered. As a result, the Superior Court quashed the appeal and remanded with instructions that the trial court vacate the June 2007 and November 2007 orders and reinstate the May 2007 order. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Bolick‘s petition for allowance of appeal, Judge Sacavage, in October 2009, entered an order reinstating the May 2007 order.
In 2010, Bolick filed a civil action in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas against a host of Commonwealth defendants. The case, which was removed to the District Court and assigned to the Honorable Anne E. Thompson (who was sitting by designation), concerned Bolick‘s 1981 judgment and the proceedings before Judge Sacavage. Judge Thompson ultimately granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Bolick‘s amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and she subsequently denied Bolick‘s motion for reconsideration. We later affirmed Judge Thompson‘s rulings. See Bolick v. Pennsylvania, 473 Fed.Appx. 136, 137 (3d Cir.2012) (per curiam).
In January 2014, Bolick commenced the instant lawsuit by filing a pro se civil rights complaint in the District Court against Judge Sacavage and Judge Thompson. The complaint, which was assigned to the Honorable C. Darnell Jones, II, revolved around Bolick‘s contention that the June 2007 order remains valid and that Judge Sacavage “illegally reinstate[d]” Bolick‘s “fraudulent” 1981 conviction. Bolick argued that the Superior Court‘s decision and Judge Sacavage‘s October 2009 order reinstating the May 2007 order should be deemed void.
Judge Sacavage moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Bolick‘s complaint was barred by, inter alia, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, the applicable statute of limitations, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and the doctrine of judicial immunity. In September 2014, Judge Jones granted Judge Sacavage‘s motion to dismiss, and also sua sponte dismissed the complaint as to Judge Thompson. In doing so, Judge Jones concluded that Bolick‘s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, Heck, and the doctrine of judicial immunity. Judge Jones‘s opinion did not discuss whether the complaint was also barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and/or the Eleventh Amendment.
Bolick timely moved for reconsideration of Judge Jones‘s order and also sought Judge Jones‘s recusal. In October 2014, Judge Jones denied both of those motions.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to
The United States Supreme Court has explained that “a federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction.” Sinochem Int‘l Co. v. Malay. Int‘l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007); see Federated Dep‘t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981) (noting that a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a judgment on the merits). As noted above, Judge Sacavage‘s motion to dismiss argued that Bolick‘s complaint was barred by, inter alia, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Eleventh Amendment. Both of those grounds are jurisdictional in nature. See Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 192 (3d Cir.2006) (Rooker-Feldman); Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 693 n. 2 (3d Cir.1996) (Eleventh Amendment). Judge Jones did not consider either of these grounds, instead disposing of Bolick‘s complaint on three non-jurisdictional grounds: Heck, the statute of limitations, and the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 837 (7th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (stating that Heck doctrine is not jurisdictional); Jiron v. City of Lakewood, 392 F.3d 410, 413 n. 1 (10th Cir.2004) (same); Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 639 (3d Cir.2009) (discussing equitable tolling of statute of limitations in civil rights actions); Shendock v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 893 F.2d 1458, 1466 (3d Cir.1990) (en banc) (explaining that equitable tolling “is not available when there are jurisdictional limitations“); Melo v. Hafer, 13 F.3d 736, 744-45 (3d Cir.1994) (indicating that judicial immunity defense is properly raised in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). Remand is not necessary, however, because, as explained below, the question of whether the District Court had jurisdiction in this case is straightforward and can be answered based on the current record.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005).
To the extent that Bolick‘s complaint sought to assert separate claims against Judge Thompson, such claims were not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Nor were they barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as that bar applies only to state actors. See Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 253-54 (3d Cir.2010). However, for substantially the reasons given by Judge Jones, we agree that any claims against Judge Thompson were barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.3
In light of the above, we will (1) modify Judge Jones‘s September 2014 order so that the grant of Judge Sacavage‘s motion to dismiss is based on the jurisdictional ground of Rooker-Feldman, and (2) affirm that order as modified. As for Judge Jones‘s October 2014 order denying Bolick‘s motions for reconsideration and recusal, we will affirm that order without any modifications. Bolick‘s motion for reconsideration did not provide any viable basis to disturb Judge Jones‘s dismissal of the complaint. See Max‘s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999) (explaining that, to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [decided] the motion [in question]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice“). Nor has Bolick demonstrated that Judge Jones abused his discretion in denying the motion to recuse. Although Bolick claimed that Judge Jones was biased, those allegations were wholly unsupported and, it appears, amounted to nothing more than dissatisfaction with Judge Jones‘s September 2014 decision. See Securacomm Consulting, Inc., 224 F.3d at 278 (“We have repeatedly stated that a party‘s displeasure with legal rulings does not form an adequate basis for recusal, and we reiterate that principal here.“) (citation omitted).