Martin v. Kline , 105 F. App'x 367 ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-19-2004
Martin v. Kline
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4408
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Martin v. Kline" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 489.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/489
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 2004 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-4408
JAM ES L. MARTIN, et al.
Appellants
v.
SAMUEL L. KLINE, et al.
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-00922 )
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 16, 2004
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
Filed July 19, 2004
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
From the parties’ briefs and appendix, notable for their lack of specific
information, we glean the following. Plaintiffs were litigants in an Orphan’s Court
proceeding of some nature in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County,
1
Pennsylvania. Defendant, Judge Kline, presided. Apparently, after a hearing concluded,
plaintiffs called alleged errors in the transcript to the attention of Judge Kline and
defendant Lisa M. Martel, the court reporter.
Plaintiffs contend that their objections to the transcript were denied by the
judge and defendant Martel. Plaintiffs took an appeal from the ruling at the hearing
(whatever it was) to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which decided in favor of
plaintiffs on the merits. As part of their appeal, plaintiffs apparently cited the refusal of
Judge Kline to correct the transcript. We do not know from the material presented
whether the Superior Court ruled on that contention or even discussed it.
Plaintiffs filed suit in the District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, claiming that Defendants had violated their First Amendment rights by
their mishandling of the court transcript. Plaintiffs asserted that the Orphan’s Court
matter was inactive for two years before arguments were heard in the District Court in the
case now before us. The District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983),
and dismissed the case.
We conclude that Rooker-Feldman is not applicable here because the relief
plaintiffs seek could not affect the favorable judgment that they obtained from the
Superior Court. See Parkview Assoc. P’ship v. City of Lebanon, 225 F.3d 321, 325-326
2
(3d Cir. 2000). The suit filed against the judge and the court reporter does not, so far as
we can determine, require any alteration of the state court judgment. Rather, the
complaint sets out an independent action seeking judgment against the defendants for
“fees, costs, attorney’s fees, emotional distress and such other relief as the court deems
appropriate,” and does not seek modification of the Superior Court’s ruling.
We conclude, nonetheless, that judgment must be entered for the
defendants. As the District Court noted in footnote 14 of its opinion, the defendants
would be entitled to judgment based on judicial immunity in the instance of Judge Kline,
and quasi-judicial immunity with respect to the court reporter, Lisa M. Martel. See Gallas
v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 769 (3d Cir. 2000); Marcedes v.
Barrett, 453 F.3d 391 (3d Cir. 1971).
The claims that plaintiffs present in this suit may more suitably be presented
to the Pennsylvania judicial disciplinary system.
Accordingly, the order of dismissal will be vacated and judgment will be
entered in favor of defendants.
3