Doreen Ludwig v. Kenneth Meyers , 313 F. App'x 479 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-12-2008
Doreen Ludwig v. Kenneth Meyers
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3765
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Doreen Ludwig v. Kenneth Meyers" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 670.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/670
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-3765
___________
DOREEN LUDWIG,
Appellant
v.
BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA;
BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS;
PRESIDENT JUDGE ARTHUR GRIM; JUDGE SCOTT D. KELLER;
MARK BALDWIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY; DR. TIMOTHY RING;
DR. LARRY ROTENBERG; KENNETH MEYERS, ESQ.;
PAMELA ULLMAN, ESQ.; JACQUELINE MARK, ESQ.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 07-cv-2127)
District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 7, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: August 12, 2008)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Doreen Ludwig, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing her civil rights action. We will
affirm.
Ludwig filed a complaint in divorce against her husband, Chester Stepien, in the
Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. In 2006, the trial court issued temporary
custody orders awarding custody of Ludwig’s children to Stepien. Ludwig unsuccessfully
appealed the interlocutory orders to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Ludwig filed a civil rights action in District Court against Berks County, the Berks
County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Scott Keller, who presided over Ludwig’s custody
case, and Judge Arthur Grimm, who allegedly promulgated court rules in violation of
state law. Ludwig also sued the court-appointed physicians in her case, Dr. Timothy Ring
and Dr. Larry Rotenberg, custody masters Kenneth Meyers and Pamela Ullman, her
husband’s attorney, Jacqueline Mark, and the District Attorney for Berks County, Mark
Baldwin.
Ludwig claimed that she was denied her rights to due process and equal protection
of the law in the state court proceedings. She alleged, among other things, that Dr. Ring
submitted a false report to the court, that custody master Ullman colluded with Jacqueline
Mark and Dr. Ring to manufacture a false record, and that Judge Keller precluded her
2
from presenting evidence and conducting cross-examination and applied the wrong law.
Ludwig further alleged that District Attorney Baldwin failed to investigate the alleged
collusion, that custody master Meyers failed to recuse himself and falsified documents,
and that Dr. Rotenberg colluded with Dr. Ring and Judge Keller to falsify the record.
Ludwig further claimed that her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
were violated. Ludwig alleged that she suffers from “the visual disability of Kerataconus
and ADD,” and that Ullman denied her work and educational accommodations and issued
a support order based on fictitious income. Ludwig brought three additional causes of
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 for the deprivation of her right to a fair trial,
false arrest and imprisonment, and conspiracy to interfere with her civil rights. These
claims were based on the alleged errors in her custody proceedings, the purported false
record, and her alleged incarceration during the proceedings. Finally, Ludwig brought
state law causes of action for libel, slander, and defamation, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress.
The District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint,
concluding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred many of Ludwig’s claims, and that
the defendants are all immune from suit for their alleged conduct. See generally Rooker
v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). This appeal followed. Our standard of review of the
District Court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is plenary, Turner v.
3
Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2006), as is our review
of the District Court’s decision that the defendants are immune from suit. Gallas v.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000).
Ludwig argues on appeal that the District Court failed to address her due process
claim. The District Court, however, indirectly adjudicated this claim in holding that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Ludwig’s claims against many of the defendants, and, to
the extent that Ludwig’s claims are not so barred, the defendants are immune from suit.
Ludwig further argues that the District Court should have allowed her to amend her
complaint before dismissing it. We disagree. As discussed below, amendment in this
case would have been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108
(3d Cir. 2002).
The District Court correctly ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Ludwig’s
claims against Judge Keller. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to cases brought by
state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before
the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection
of those judgments. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280,
284 (2005). Although raised as a federal constitutional claim, Ludwig’s assertions that
Judge Keller precluded her from presenting evidence and cross-examining witnesses and
misapplied the law indirectly attack the custody determination adjudicated in state court.
Because a ruling that Ludwig’s due process rights were violated based on Judge Keller’s
4
rulings would have required the District Court to find that the state court judgment was
erroneous, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Ludwig’s claims against Judge Keller. See
Marran v. Marran, 376 F.3d 143, 153 (3d Cir. 2004).
We disagree with the District Court, however, that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
bars Ludwig’s due process claims against Drs. Ring and Rotenberg, custody masters
Meyers and Ullman, and her husband’s attorney, Jacqueline Mark, based on their alleged
improper conduct in the custody proceedings. Ludwig alleged that these defendants
colluded and provided false reports to the state court. We addressed a somewhat similar
situation in Marran, which also involved a custody dispute. In that case, the state court
judge adjudicated allegations of abuse and relied on the county’s finding that the
allegations were unfounded. The plaintiff alleged in her federal complaint that the county
defendants violated her due process rights by failing to conduct an adequate investigation
of the abuse allegations. We held that Rooker-Feldman was not implicated because a
finding that the county defendants violated the plaintiff’s due process rights would not
require a finding that the state court erred in relying on the report stemming from the
county’s investigation. Marran, 376 F.3d at 154. Similarly, a finding that Drs. Ring and
Rotenberg, Meyers, Ullman, and Mark violated Ludwig’s due process rights would not
require a finding that the state court erred in relying on their reports. As in Marran, such
a determination may have an effect on the custody determination, but Rooker-Feldman is
not implicated.
5
Although the District Court had jurisdiction over these claims, as well as Ludwig’s
claims against District Attorney Mark Baldwin, Judge Grimm, and Berks County, the
District Court correctly held that the defendants are immune from suit. As further
discussed by the District Court, the Berks County Court of Common Pleas is immune
from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pennsylvania,
426 F.3d 233, 240 (3d Cir. 2005), and is not a “person” subject to liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Callahan v. City of Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 673 (3d Cir. 2000). Any
remaining claims for damages against Judge Keller in his official capacity are similarly
barred. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). In his
personal capacity, Judge Keller has absolute immunity from liability for his judicial acts.
Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 2006).
Ludwig’s claims against Judge Grimm are based on his promulgation of local
court rules, which Ludwig contends violate Pennsylvania law. The District Court
correctly held that Judge Grimm is entitled to legislative immunity for his part in the
adoption of the local rules. See Gallas, 211 F.3d at 773-74. The District Court also
correctly held that Drs. Rotenberg and Ring, who the court appointed to evaluate the
parties, and custody masters Meyers and Ullman, are entitled to judicial immunity
because they acted as arms of the court. Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121, 126-27 (3d Cir.
2001).
6
We also agree with the District Court that District Attorney Mark Baldwin is
entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from Ludwig’s claim that he failed to
prosecute private criminal complaints that she filed against the other defendants. See
Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1463-64 (3d Cir. 1992). Because Ludwig does not
state a claim against Baldwin or the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, Ludwig’s
claim against Berks County, which she sought to hold financially responsible for their
acts, was properly dismissed.
Finally, the District Court did not err in dismissing Ludwig’s claims against her
husband’s attorney, Jacqueline Mark. Ludwig does not state a constitutional claim
against Mark because she is not a state actor acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Mark is entitled to immunity from Ludwig’s state law defamation claims because
the alleged tortious communications were made in connection with a judicial proceeding.
Post v. Mendel, 507 A.2d 351, 356 (Pa. 1986).1
Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
1
Mark’s April 16, 2008, request that this appeal be dismissed on other grounds is
denied as moot. In addition, Ludwig’s motion to include new evidence into the record is
denied. See In re Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.’s Application for Access to Sealed
Transcripts, 913 F.2d 89, 96 (3d Cir. 1990) (noting court of appeals cannot consider
material on appeal that is outside the district court record). Finally, we note that Ludwig
sought declaratory judgments requiring the Berks County District Attorney’s Office to
conduct various investigations. Ludwig, however, did not name the District Attorney’s
Office as a defendant in her complaint.
7