Mourat v. Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, Civ. A. No. 81-2118.
Decision Date | 22 May 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 81-2118. |
Citation | 515 F. Supp. 1074 |
Parties | Joyce MOURAT, Plaintiff, v. COMMON PLEAS COURT OF LEHIGH COUNTY, Honorable John E. Backenstoe, Clerk of Courts Joseph Joseph, Court Stenographer Nellie Zweifel, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Joyce Mourat, pro se.
John M. Ashcraft, III, Allentown, Pa., for County of Lehigh.
Thomas J. Turczyn, Allentown, Pa., for Joseph Joseph.
BENCH OPINION
THE COURT: The matter of Joyce Mourat, plaintiff vs. Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, Honorable John E. Backenstoe, Clerk of Courts Joseph Joseph, Court Stenographer Nellie Zweifel, defendants, Civil Action No. 81-2118.
The plaintiff has requested immediate relief at the hands of this Court and has presented to the Court not only her complaints but a full and complete statement of her position, including her position as her own legal representative appearing pro se, but has also under oath testified to the facts upon which she relies in pursuing the complaint in question.
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order which is, of course, in the nature of immediate injunctive relief. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiff must demonstrate that irreparable injury will occur if relief is not granted until a final adjudication on the merits can be made, that there is a reasonable probability of success on the merits, and that the possibility of harm to the nonmoving party, as well as to any other interested party, will be minimal, and that harm to the public, when relevant, will not be likely. See Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 356-57 (3d Cir. 1980). Accord, Kennecott Corp. v. Smith, 637 F.2d 181 (3d Cir. 1980); Fitzgerald v. Mountain Laurel Racing Corp., 607 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1979); Perkins v. Wagner, 513 F.Supp. 904 (E.D. Pa., 1981).
To prove "irreparable injury," plaintiff must show an "imminent threat" rather than the "mere possibility of a remote future injury." See Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemical Corp., 614 F.2d at 359.
Now, in the case at bar and before the Court, plaintiff has alleged that defendants wrongly charged her with making false statements to police officers investigating an alleged crime. The false statements are alluded to by the plaintiff after allegedly making or attempting to make a visit to a Congressman Ritter. Thereafter, law enforcement officers charged her with making false statements. She was bound over for trial and eventually placed in what is described as the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program, ARD.
Now, if the defendants, who have not yet been served with the plaintiff's complaint, admit or concede an inaccurate record, obviously, no intervention by this Court is necessary, much less warranted. If they deny plaintiff's allegations — and assuming they deny such allegations, then the following disposition of the case is necessary and warranted under the law.
Whether plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits does not require her to show that a final decision after trial is "wholly without doubt;" rather plaintiff must garner a "prima facie case of showing a reasonable probability." See Punnett v. Carter, 621 F.2d 578, 583 (3d Cir. 1980). See also Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, ___ U.S. ___, ___ n.7, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1094 n.7, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Plaintiff has not met this burden in this case.
Defendant, Judge Backenstoe, who placed the plaintiff in the ARD program, is absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We here cite Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362-65, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1107-1109, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Accord, Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2913, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) and Shaffer v. Cook, 634 F.2d 1259, 1260 (10th Cir. 1980).
The clerk, Joseph Joseph, is also immune from suit. In the "recognized immunity enjoyed by judicial and quasi-judicial officers, including prothonataries, there exists an equally well-grounded principle that any public official acting pursuant to court directive is also immune." We have here quoted from Lockhart v. Hoenstine, 411 F.2d 455, 460 (3d Cir. 1969). If he failed to act in accordance with the judicial mandate or court rule, he would place himself in contempt of court. See Zimmerman v. Spears, 428 F.Supp. 759, 752 (W.D.Tex.), aff'd, 565 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1977); Davis v. Quarter Sessions Court, 361 F.Supp. 720, 722 (E.D.Pa.1973); Ginsburg v. Stern, 125 F.Supp. 596 (W.D.Pa.1954), aff'd per curiam on other grounds, 225 F.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. Wilson, C/A No. 5:15-cv-02873-RMG-KDW
...immunity from lawsuits such as this one. See Cook v. Smith, 812 F. Supp. 561, 562 (E.D. Pa.1993); Mourat v. Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, 515 F. Supp. 1074, 1076 (E.D. Pa. 1981). The doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity has been adopted and made applicable to court support pe......
-
Green v. Maraio
...583 F.2d 779 (5th Cir.1978), aff'd after remand to the district court, 690 F.2d 446 (5th Cir.1982); Mourat v. Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, 515 F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (E.D.Pa.1981). Green contends that the existence of any immunity defense for Maraio depends on her position and her motiv......
-
Bryan v. McCall, C/A No. 5:15-cv-00871-TMC-KDW
...immunity from lawsuits such as this one. See Cook v. Smith, 812 F. Supp. 561, 562 (E.D. Pa. 1993); Mourat v. Common Pleas Ct. of Lehigh Cnty., 515 F. Supp. 1074, 1076 (E.D. Pa. 1981). The doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity has been adopted and made applicable to court support pers......
-
Cook v. Smith
...(court reporter entitled to judicial immunity since quasi-judicial officer of court). Similarly, in Mourat v. Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County, 515 F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (E.D.Pa.1981), the court stated that a court reporter's qualified immunity shields her from suit when she acts pursuant t......