Reardon v. Hillman, 082818 FED3, 18-1880

Docket Nº:18-1880
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:JOHN E. REARDON; JUDITH A. REARDON; JOHN J. REARDON, Appellants v. NOEL HILLMAN; JAY SANCHEZ; DESIREE RAMSEY; RYAN MERRIGAN
Judge Panel:Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
Case Date:August 28, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

JOHN E. REARDON; JUDITH A. REARDON; JOHN J. REARDON, Appellants

v.

NOEL HILLMAN; JAY SANCHEZ; DESIREE RAMSEY; RYAN MERRIGAN

No. 18-1880

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

August 28, 2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect, and on Appellees' Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 August 23, 2018

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3-18-cv-01296) District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti

Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

OPINION [*]

PER CURIAM

Appellant, John E. Reardon, submitted a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of himself, and Judith A. and John J. Reardon, against District Court Judge Noel Hillman and three employees of the District Court's Clerk's Office ("Clerk's Office employees"). The Reardons alleged, inter alia, that District Judge Hillman and the Clerk's Office employees violated certain of their constitutional rights by refusing to grant their various motions for default judgment filed in two other civil actions they are litigating in the District of New Jersey. The District Court concluded that the complaint was barred by judicial immunity. Accordingly, it dismissed the action against District Judge Hillman with prejudice and dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to the Clerk's Office employees. John E. Reardon appeals.1

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Reardon's complaint.2 The Supreme Court has long recognized that judges are immune from suit for monetary damages arising from their judicial acts. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225-27 (1988); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978). Judicial immunity applies unless the judge's actions either were nonjudicial or were taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. See Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12). Likewise...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP