Filed: Mar. 30, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-30-2006 Hawkins v. Supreme Ct of NJ Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-4361 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Hawkins v. Supreme Ct of NJ" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1362. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1362 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-30-2006 Hawkins v. Supreme Ct of NJ Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-4361 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Hawkins v. Supreme Ct of NJ" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1362. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1362 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the ..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-30-2006
Hawkins v. Supreme Ct of NJ
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4361
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Hawkins v. Supreme Ct of NJ" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1362.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1362
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4361
________________
ELDRIDGE HAWKINS, individually and as attorney for Maria
Glava, Suliman Shabazz and Ehiri Pius
Appellant
v.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY; DEBORAH T. PORITZ, Honorable;
EUGENE CODY, Honorable; FRANCINE SCHOTT, Honorable; D. JARED
HONIGFELD, Honorable; EDMOND M. KIRBY, Honorable; PETER B. COOPER,
Honorable; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-01317)
District Judge: Honorable William G. Bassler
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 1, 2006
Before: BARRY, STAPLETON AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed March 30, 2006 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
In March 2004, Eldridge Hawkins, an attorney proceeding pro se, initiated the
underlying civil rights action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. Hawkins asserted claims under the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Thirteenth,
Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, as well as the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination. According to Hawkins, the defendants violated his rights by making
certain rulings between 1999 and 2004 during numerous state court proceedings where he
had appeared on behalf of a variety of clients. The defendants subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss Hawkins’ amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). In their motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that Hawkins’
claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention doctrines,1 the
Eleventh Amendment, judicial immunity, and the statute of limitations.
By order entered August 31, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants’
motion to dismiss. First, to the extent that Hawkins’ claims had been “actually litigated in
state court,” or were “inextricably intertwined with [the] state court adjudication[s],” the
District Court concluded that they were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Desi’s
Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 321 F.3d 411, 419 (3d Cir. 2003) (quotations and
citations omitted). Second, assuming arguendo that Hawkins’ claims were not barred by
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the District Court concluded that the Supreme Court of
New Jersey and the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey were
1
See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413
(1923).
2
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, while the remaining defendants were entitled
to judicial immunity. Finally, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Hawkins’ state law claim. This timely appeal followed.2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of the
District Court’s dismissal of Hawkins’ amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Gary v. Air Group, Inc., 397 F.3d 183, 186 (3d Cir. 2005). Because we are
reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, we accept as true the factual allegations in the
complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the Hawkins. Doug Grant, Inc. v.
Greate Bay Casino Corp.,
232 F.3d 173, 183 (3d Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any
grounds supported by the record. Nicini v. Morra,
212 F.3d 798, 805 (3d Cir. 2000) (en
banc).
After careful review of the record, and the appellate briefs, we will affirm the
August 31, 2005, order for essentially the same reasons set forth by the District Court.
We write here briefly only to add the following. We agree with the District Court that
Hawkins is not merely raising a “general constitutional challenge” to the rules and
procedures used by the New Jersey state courts, but is instead primarily challenging the
allegedly unconstitutional practices and acts to which he was subjected. Compare
2
On appeal, Hawkins argues that the District Court should have disqualified the
Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey as counsel for the defendants.
The District Court declined to consider this issue because Hawkins failed to file a motion
to disqualify. Because this issue was not properly raised in the District Court, we decline
to consider it on appeal.
3
Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1429 (3d Cir. 1989) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not
apply where “[t]he declaratory judgment [a plaintiff] seeks is prospective and directed
toward the rules and procedures for considering [future] petitions for reinstatement, rather
than toward the decision of the state supreme court on [the plaintiff’s] prior petition”),
with Stern v. Nix,
840 F.2d 208 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding that because the suit at issue
effectively required review of the state court’s judgment in the plaintiff’s particular case,
it was not a “general challenge” and, therefore, was barred by Rooker-Feldman). One
telltale indication that Hawkins is not simply raising a general challenge to state court
rules and procedures is the “extensive exposition of the specific facts” of Hawkins’ state
court cases in his amended complaint, “which hardly would have been necessary if the
district court were being asked only to assess the validity” of the rules and procedures in
their general application.
Stern, 840 F.2d at 212-13.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Hawkins’ claims were not barred by
Rooker-Feldman, his amended complaint would have been subject to dismissal in any
event under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. First, even aside from the issue of sovereign immunity,3 neither the Supreme
3
We do note, for Hawkins’ benefit, that the Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908),
exception to sovereign immunity permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against
individual state officials in their official capacities. A careful reading of the District
Court’s August 31, 2005, order, however, clearly shows that the District Court
determined only that the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Office of the Attorney
General for the State of New Jersey were entitled to sovereign immunity, not the named
state officials. As such, Young is not applicable here.
4
Court of New Jersey nor the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey is
a “person” subject to liability under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,
491 U.S. 58 (1989). Second, although the District Court did not specifically address
Hawkins’ allegations that he is entitled to relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2201, when finding the defendant justice and judges immune from suit for
monetary damages and injunctive relief, the District Court did not err in dismissing these
claims because Hawkins is not entitled to the declaratory relief he seeks. See Johnson v.
Onion,
761 F.2d 224, 225 (5th Cir. 1985) (concluding that the Declaratory Judgment Act
cannot be used to obtain relief where appellant claimed that past judicial conduct violated
his constitutional rights); see also Emory v. Peeler,
756 F.2d 1547, 1552 (11th Cir. 1985)
(noting that a “declaration that [a judge’s] past conduct violated [a plaintiff’s]
constitutional rights . . . would be nothing more than a gratuitous comment without any
force or effect”) (citations and quotations omitted).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we will affirm the District Court’s August
31, 2005 order.
