MADISON v. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINIONSIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 11/14/13. 11/14/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

YVETTE MADISON

F~~c ~D

v.

NOV 14l013
NO. 13-6551

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER, et al.

MICHAr::·~., :-:
By t; "

MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER

O'NEILL, J.

11,

l,'; );
' ·

r::.IJierk

Dcp. Clerk

2013

Yvette Madison brings this pro se civil action against the
Criminal Justice Center and Philadelphia Municipal Court Judges
Marsha Neifeild and David Shuter.
pauperis.

She seeks to proceed in forma

For the following reasons, the Court will grant

plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss her
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
I.

§

1915(e) (2) (B).

FACTS

Plaintiff alleges that she was arrested and discriminated
against by Judges Shuter and Neifield.

She also claims to have

been falsely imprisoned at Norristown State Hospital "with false
charges pressed against [her]."

(Compl.

~

III.C.)

It appears

that plaintiff's claims are based on a criminal proceeding
brought against her in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.
51-CR-0053925-2009.

See MC-

The docket for that proceeding reflects that

Judges Shuter and Neifield presided over plaintiff's criminal
case at various times and, in the course of doing so, issued a
bench warrant for her arrest, withdrew that warrant, and had her
committed to Norristown State Hospital after concluding that she
was not competent to proceed with trial.

1

Plaintiff asserts that

Judge Neifield "kept finding [her] not competent because
[plaintiff] was suing [the Judge]."

(Compl. ~ III.C.)

After her release from Norristown State Hospital, plaintiff
initiated this action, claiming "obstruction of justice,
harassment, retaliation, racism discrimination, false
imprisonment,

[violations of her]

ath and 14th [Amendment]

rights,

pain[] and suffering & emotional distress, conspiracy, and
malicious prosecution."
II.

(Id.)

She seeks $2 million in damages.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
As plaintiff has satisfied the criteria set forth in 28

U.S.C. § 1915, she is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) applies.

That provision

requires the Court to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune.

Whether a complaint fails to state a

claim under§ 1915(e) is governed by the same standard applicable
to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b) (6), §§g Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.
1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the
complaint contains "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)

(quotations omitted).

The Court may also consider matters of public record.

Buck v.

Hampton TwP. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006).

As

plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe her
allegations liberally.

Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339
2

(3d Cir. 2011).
III. DISCUSSION

The Court understands plaintiff to be raising constitutional
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§

1983, and related state law claims

based on her arrest and related commitment to Norristown State
Hospital.

However, her claims must be dismissed because all of

the defendants are entitled to immunity.

The Criminal Justice

Center, a court that is part of Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial
System, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and, in any
event, is not a "person" for purposes of

§

1983.

See Will v.

Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989)
that

§

(explaining

1983 "does not provide a federal forum for litigants who

seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil
liberties"); Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233,
235 n.1 & 241 (3d Cir. 2005)

(holding that Pennsylvania courts

are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity) .

Furthermore, as it

is apparent that plaintiff is suing Judges Neifield and Shuter
based on acts they took in their judicial capacity, the judges
are entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

See Gallas v.

Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000)

("[J]udges

are immune from suit under section 1983 for monetary damages
arising from their judicial acts."); see also Figueroa v.
Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 441-42 (3d Cir. 2000)

(holding that

judges of courts of limited jurisdiction are entitled to judicial
immunity); Langella v. Cercone, 34 A.3d 835, 838 (Pa. Super. Ct.
2011)

("[J]udges are absolutely immune from liability for damages
3

when performing judicial acts, even if their actions are in error
or performed with malice

.")

(quotations omitted and

alteration in original) .
A district court should generally provide a pro se plaintiff
with leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile.

See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114

(3d Cir. 2002).

Here, amendment would be futile because

plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies in her complaint.
Accordingly, plaintiff will not be permitted to file an amended
complaint.

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss

plaintiff's complaint.

An appropriate order follows.

4