From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Azubuko v. Royal

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Mar 22, 2006
443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006)

Summary

holding claim against judge for injunctive relief was barred under § 1983

Summary of this case from Kornafel v. Del Chevrolet

Opinion

No. 05-4584.

Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) February 24, 2006.

Filed March 22, 2006.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey, Faith S. Hochberg, J.

Chukwuma E. Azubuko, Boston, MA, pro se.

Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.


OPINION


Chukwuma Azubuko appeals from the District Court's order dismissing his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because we determine that the appeal is lacking in arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

This case grows out of two lawsuits that Azubuko, a resident of Boston, Massachusetts, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Both lawsuits, one challenging the cancellation of his credit card and the other against the Suffolk County Sheriff in Massachusetts, were dismissed. Judge Royal presided over both cases.

On August 1, 2005, Azubuko filed what appears to be a civil rights action against Judge Royal in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He seeks fifteen million dollars in damages, the reversal of the two cases, and an injunction preventing the Judge Royal from presiding over any future cases. On September 7, 2005, the District Court granted Azubuko's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered that he file an amended complaint within 10 days that set forth a short and plain statement of his claim. Instead of amending his complaint, Azubuko filed a motion for recusal. On September 29, 2005, the District Court dismissed the complaint and denied his motion.

Azubuko's filings are, to be charitable, confusing. Construing his pleadings liberally, we are led to conclude that he is filing an action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Azubuko timely filed a notice of appeal. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having granted Azubuko leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we must now determine whether his appeal should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appeal may be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). We may affirm the District Court on any ground supported by the record. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 239 (3d Cir. 1999). We review a District Court's denial of a motion for recusal for abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 287, 290 (3d Cir. 1980).

A judicial officer in the performance of his duties has absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for his judicial acts. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the `clear absence of all jurisdiction.'" Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted). All of the allegations in Azubuko's complaint relate to actions taken by Judge Royal in his capacity as a judge. Azubuko has not set forth any facts that would show that Judge Royal's actions were taken in clear absence of his jurisdiction.

Azubuko's request for injunctive relief is also unavailing. In 1996, Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to provide that "injunctive relief shall not be granted" in an action brought against "a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity . . . unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that the amendment applies to both state and federal judges); see also Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987); Antoine v. Byers Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 433 n. 5, 113 S.Ct. 2167, 124 L.Ed.2d 391 (1993) (noting that the rules regarding judicial immunity do not distinguish between lawsuits brought against state officials and those brought against federal officials). Because Azubuko has not alleged that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief is unavailable, and because the injunctive relief sought by Azubuko does not address the actions of Judge Royal other than in his judicial capacity, his claim for injunctive relief is barred.

Further, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Azubuko's motion for recusal. Azubuko, in his motion, claims that Judge Hochberg should withdraw from his case because "[t]here existed a conflict of interest. The Plaintiff had a lawsuit pending against her." However, the mere fact that Judge Hochberg may be one of the numerous federal judges that Azubuko has filed suit against is not sufficient to establish that her recusal from his case is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or § 455(a). See In re Taylor, 417 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2005) ("[A] per se rule of disqualification [under § 455(a)] would allow litigants to judge shop by filing a suit against the presiding judge."); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A judge is not disqualified [under § 144] by a litigant's suit or threatened suit against him.")

In addition to the current suit against Judge Royal, Azubuko also brought a nearly identical suit in the District of Delaware against a District Judge for the District of Massachusetts. Azubuko v. Judge Patti S. Saris, 167 Fed.Appx. 317 (3d Cir. 2006).

In sum, we readily conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed Azubuko's complaint. Because his appeal also lacks merit, we will dismiss it under § 1915(e)(2)(B).


Summaries of

Azubuko v. Royal

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Mar 22, 2006
443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006)

holding claim against judge for injunctive relief was barred under § 1983

Summary of this case from Kornafel v. Del Chevrolet

holding that the claim for injunctive relief against the judge was barred

Summary of this case from Thorpe v. Twp. of Salisbury

holding that claim for injunctive relief against state judge in his judicial capacity barred because plaintiff had not alleged violation of declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable

Summary of this case from Maldonado v. Wilson

holding that claim for injunctive relief against state judge in his judicial capacity barred because plaintiff had not alleged violation of declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable

Summary of this case from Lowery v. Ky. Court of Justice

holding that claim for injunctive relief against state judge in his judicial capacity barred because plaintiff had not alleged violation of declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable

Summary of this case from Fields v. Strode

holding requested injunctive relief barred where plaintiff had "not alleged that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief [was] unavailable" and "the injunctive relief sought by [plaintiff did] not address the actions of [the judge] other than in his judicial capacity"

Summary of this case from Gochin v. Thomas Jefferson Univ.

holding that claim for injunctive relief against state judge in his judicial capacity barred because plaintiff had not alleged violation of declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable

Summary of this case from Green v. Eckerle

holding that 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 455 do not require recusal though a judge may have a pending or threatened suit against her by a litigant

Summary of this case from Breslin v. Dickinson Township

holding that claim for injunctive relief against state judge in his judicial capacity barred because plaintiff had not alleged violation of declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable

Summary of this case from Borden v. Castlen

holding that district judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to withdraw from case by pro se litigant against another federal judge where pro se litigant also had a lawsuit pending against district judge because the fact that pro se litigant had sued numerous federal judges, including the one handling the case was not sufficient to establish that recusal was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or § 455

Summary of this case from Coggins v. Abbett

holding that district judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to withdraw from case by pro se litigant against another federal judge where pro se litigant also had a lawsuit pending against district judge because the fact that pro se litigant had sued numerous federal judges, including the one handling the case was not sufficient to establish that recusal was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or § 455

Summary of this case from Coggins v. Scroggins

holding that district judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to withdraw from case by pro se litigant against another federal judge where pro se litigant also had a lawsuit pending against district judge because the fact that pro se litigant had sued numerous federal judges, including the one handling the case was not sufficient to establish that recusal was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or § 455

Summary of this case from Coggins v. Keys

holding that district judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to withdraw from case by pro se litigant against another federal judge where pro se litigant also had a lawsuit pending against district judge because the fact that pro se litigant had sued numerous federal judges, including the one handling the case was not sufficient to establish that recusal was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or § 455

Summary of this case from COGGINS v. TOWN OF JACKSON'S GAP

finding that there was no basis to warrant the District Court Judge's recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 based on an alleged conflict of interest notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff had a lawsuit pending in which the District Judge was a named defendant

Summary of this case from Link v. Adamski

finding that the Federal Courts Improvement Act prevents suit against a judge because plaintiff "has not alleged that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief is unavailable."

Summary of this case from In re Kovalchick

upholding dismissal of § 1983 claims for damages against state judges for actions taken in prior lawsuits

Summary of this case from Brown v. Aponte

affirming the dismissal of plaintiff's civil rights action against a judge because all of the allegations in the complaint related to actions taken in his official capacity as judge and there was no showing that the actions were taken in clear absence of his jurisdiction

Summary of this case from STOUT v. NAUS

affirming the dismissal of plaintiff's civil rights action against a judge because all of the allegations in the complaint related to actions taken in his official capacity as judge and there was no showing that the actions were taken in the clear absence of his jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Krankowski v. O'Neil

recognizing Congress expanded 42 U.S.C. §1983 to provide immunity to judges against injunctive relief claims

Summary of this case from Graves v. Cohen

recognizing Congress expanded section 1983 to provide immunity to judges against injunctive relief claims

Summary of this case from Graves v. Cohen

recognizing Congress expanded 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to preclude claims seeking injunctive relief against judicial officers

Summary of this case from Talbert v. Evers

regarding motions for recusal

Summary of this case from Grant v. Elias

explaining that injunctive relief against a judicial officer is not available under § 1983 unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief is unavailable

Summary of this case from Sheffer v. Ctr. Cnty.

explaining that " judicial officer in the performance of his duties has absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for his judicial acts" unless the judge "acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Williams v. Toomey

explaining that "injunctive relief shall not be granted" in a § 1983 action against a state or federal judicial officer "for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity. . . unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable"

Summary of this case from Little v. Hammond
Case details for

Azubuko v. Royal

Case Details

Full title:Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO v. Judge C. Ashley ROYAL in Official and Individual…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Mar 22, 2006

Citations

443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006)

Citing Cases

Richardson v. Wilkinsburg Police Dep't

Under that doctrine, a judicial officer has absolute immunity from suit for action taken in his or her…

Perez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

(noting immunity applies to claims for monetary and injunctive relief). “A judge will not be deprived of…