Filed: May 06, 2020
Latest Update: May 06, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-2144 _ PHILIP E. HAHN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE UNITED STATES; THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY SENATE; THE CONGRESS OF NEW JERSEY; THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY; THE BERGEN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; COUNTY OF BERGEN; BERGEN COUNTY POLICE; BERGEN COUNTY JAIL; THE BOROUGH OF PARAMUS; THE PARAMUS POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CENTRAL MUNICIPAL COURT OF BERGEN CO
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-2144 _ PHILIP E. HAHN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE UNITED STATES; THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY SENATE; THE CONGRESS OF NEW JERSEY; THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY; THE BERGEN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; COUNTY OF BERGEN; BERGEN COUNTY POLICE; BERGEN COUNTY JAIL; THE BOROUGH OF PARAMUS; THE PARAMUS POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CENTRAL MUNICIPAL COURT OF BERGEN COU..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-2144
___________
PHILIP E. HAHN,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE UNITED STATES;
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES;
THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY SENATE;
THE CONGRESS OF NEW JERSEY; THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY;
THE BERGEN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; COUNTY OF BERGEN;
BERGEN COUNTY POLICE; BERGEN COUNTY JAIL;
THE BOROUGH OF PARAMUS; THE PARAMUS POLICE DEPARTMENT;
THE CENTRAL MUNICIPAL COURT OF BERGEN COUNTY;
JUSTICE RABNER; JUDGE WAUGH; JUDGE DENICE; JUDGE GUIDA;
JOHN DOE, 1 TO 100; JUDGE RANDAL C. CHIOCCA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 2:18-cv-17663)
District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on May 1, 2020
Before: JORDAN, BIBAS, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 6, 2020)
____________________________________
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Philip Hahn appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his com-
plaint. For the reasons detailed below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Hahn has filed numerous actions, mainly in New Jersey state court. In this suit, he
claims that his constitutional right to a jury trial was violated when a New Jersey court
disposed of a prior action at the motion-to-dismiss stage. He named a host of defendants,
including the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, the State of New Jersey, and five
New Jersey judges, among many others. Several defendants filed motions to dismiss. The
District Court concluded that Hahn’s “potential causes of action are unclear, and the facts
provided in [his] Complaint are insufficient to support a claim entitling him to relief.” D.C.
Dkt. No. 26, at 2 (May 1, 2019 Order). The Court also observed that Hahn’s claims against
the judges would be barred by judicial immunity and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
would prevent it from ruling on the propriety of a state-court judgment. May 1, 2019 Or-
der 2 n.2; see also D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
Tr. Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923). The District Court therefore dismissed the complaint as to
all defendants. May 1, 2019 Order 3.
Hahn filed a notice of appeal. In this Court, the United States filed a motion to sum-
marily affirm, which was joined by several other defendants. We summarily affirmed as to
many of the defendants,1 and the case has now been briefed by Hahn and the remaining
defendants. Hahn has also filed several motions in this Court.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise a plenary standard of review,
Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co.,
679 F.3d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012). “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
On appeal, Hahn asserts just a single argument: that the District Court violated his Sev-
enth Amendment rights by dismissing the case on the papers without submitting his claims
to a jury.2 This argument is meritless. The Seventh Amendment does not prevent a District
1
We summarily affirmed as to the County of Bergen; the Bergen County Sheriff’s De-
partment (pleaded as the Bergen County Police); the Bergen County Jail; Judge Louis
Dinice (pleaded as Judge Denice); the Central Municipal Court of Bergen County; the Su-
preme Court of New Jersey; the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen Vicinage; Judge
Stuart Rabner; Judge Randal C. Chiocca; and Judge James J. Guida. C.A. Dec. 17, 2019
Order 2.
2
We will consider only the issue that Hahn raised in his brief. See Laborers’ Int’l Union
of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Corp.,
26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994) (“An issue
is waived unless a party raises it in its opening brief, and for those purposes ‘a passing
reference to an issue . . . will not suffice to bring that issue before this court.’ ” (alteration
in original) (quoting Simmons v. City of Philadelphia,
947 F.2d 1042, 1066 (3d Cir. 1991)
(opinion of Becker, J.))); see also Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.,
704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d
Cir. 2013) (noting that pro se litigants “must abide by the same rules that apply to all other
litigants”). Hahn also occasionally presents arguments concerning Judge Chiocca, but we
3
Court from dismissing a complaint in a case, like this one, where the plaintiff has failed to
plead a plausible claim. See, e.g., Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore,
439 U.S. 322, 336 (1979);
Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
748 F.3d 624, 631 n.5 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Dismissal
of [appellants’] claims pursuant to a valid [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion does not violate their
right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.”).
Accordingly, we will affirm. Hahn’s pending motions are denied.
have already summarily affirmed the District Court’s judgment as to him. See supra note 1.
4