Redding v. Walsh, 18179.
Decision Date | 06 October 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 18179.,18179. |
Citation | 449 F.2d 1301 |
Parties | Bruce K. REDDING, Appellant, v. John WALSH, Magistrate and Edward Cohen, Constable. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Joseph V. Cygan, Norristown, Pa., for appellant.
Gilbert I. Yaros, Kremer, Krimsky & Luterman, Philadelphia, Pa. (I. Raymond Kremer, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before VAN DUSEN, ALDISERT and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
Submitted under 3d Cir. Rule 12(6) September 23, 1971.
This appeal from an order dismissing a civil rights action against one of two co-defendants without "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and * * * an express determination for the entry of judgment" under F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) is not within the jurisdiction of this court and must be dismissed. Shipley Corp. v. Leonard Marcus Co., 214 F.2d 493, 495 (3d Cir. 1954); see United Bonding Insurance Company v. Stein, 410 F.2d 483 (3d Cir. 1969); 6 Moore, Federal Practice (2d Ed.), § 54.34(2), pp. 245-46. It is also noted that the co-defendant in whose favor the above order was entered was a state judicial officer and, hence, is immune from suit under the Civil Rights Acts. See Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581 (3d Cir. 1966).1
The appeal will be dismissed.
1 There was no absence of subject matter jurisdiction on the part of the judicial officer. Even though the complaint alleged "violation of constitutional rights and * * * deprivation of the freedom of his person without due process of law," as well as "a malicious purpose and intent and a wanton disregard for plaintiff's constitutional rights," the Supreme Court of the United States has said in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Turack v. Guido, 72-1052.
...growing out of their official duties. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Redding v. Walsh, 449 F.2d 1301, 1302 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1971); Lockhart v. Hoenstine, 411 F.2d 455, 460 (3d Cir. 1969). The prosecutors are similarly immune. Kauffman v. Moss, 420 ......
- United States v. Castillo, 29506.