Gibbs v. Minner

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-31-2008
Gibbs v. Minner
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4674
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Gibbs v. Minner" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1354.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1354
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.
BLD-135
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
NO. 07-4674
___________
ARSON I. GIBBS,
Appellant
v.
GOVERNOR RUTH ANN MINNER; MEMBERS OF THE SENATE individually in
both houses and in their official capacity; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
individually in both houses and in their official capacity; LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE individually in both houses and in their official capacity;
THURMAN ADAMS; STEVEN H. AMICK; PATRICIA M. BLEVINS; COLIN R.J.
BONNI; GEORGE H. BUNTING; CATHERINE L. CLOUTIER; DORINDA A.
CONNOR; NANCY W. COOK; CHARLES L. COPELAND; ANTHONY J. DELUCA;
MARGARET ROSE HENRY; ROBERT I. MARSHALL; DAVID B. MCBRIDE;
HARRIS B. MCDOWELL; KAREN E. PETERSON; F. GARY SIMPSON;
DAVID P. SOKOLA; LIANE SORENSEN; JOHN C. STILL; JAMES T. VAUGHN;
ROBERT L. VENABLES; DONALD A. BLAKEY; JOSEPH W. BOOTH; GERALD L.
BRADY; BRYON H. SHORT; V. GEORGE CAREY; RICHARD C. CATHCART;
BENCE C. ENNIS; J. BENJAMIN EWING; ROBERT F. GILLIGAN; BETHANY A.
HALL-LONG; GREGORY A. HASTINGS; GERALD W. HOCKER; DEBORAH HUDSON;
JAMES JOHNSON; HELENE M. KEELEY; JOHN A. KOWALKO; GREGORY F.
LAVELLE; CLIFFORD G. LEE; VINCENT A. LOFINK; VALERIE LONGHURST;
MELANIE G. MARSHALL; PAMELA S. MAIER; NICK T. MANOLAKOS; DIANA M.
MCWILLIAMS; JOSEPH E. MINO; JOHN L. MITCHELL; MICHAEL P. MULROONEY;
WILLIAM A. OBERLE; WILLIAM R. OUTTEN; HAZEL D. PLANT; TERESA SCHOOLEY;
PETER C. SCHWARTZKOPF; TERRY R. SPENCE; DONNA D. STONE; PAMELA J.
THORNBURG; ROBERT J. VALIHURA; JOHN J. VIOLA; NANCY H. WAGNER;
ROBERT E. WALLS; DENNIS J. WILLIAMS
__________________________
Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-00342)
District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson
___________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 17, 2008
Before: McKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed March 31, 2008 )
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Arson I. Gibbs, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District
Court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Because we agree with the District Court and conclude that this appeal is
frivolous as well, we will dismiss it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I.
Gibbs is currently serving a ten-year prison sentence imposed following his
conviction on multiple counts of forgery and theft. Before his conviction, he had been
detained on these felony charges because he was in default of his bail. Gibbs sought
state-court habeas corpus relief from that confinement, which the state courts denied
pursuant to 10 Del. Code § 6902(1) after determining that his detention on that basis was
2
lawful. He later sought federal habeas relief from his subsequent conviction. The United
States District Court for the District of Delaware denied his petition, and we declined to
issue a certificate of appealability. Gibbs v. Carroll, C.A. No. 07-2944 (Sept. 24, 2007
order).
While Gibbs’s federal habeas proceeding was pending, he filed the instant action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The precise nature of his claim is somewhat unclear, but he
appears to allege that 10 Del. Code § 6902(1) suspends the federal writ of habeas corpus
in violation of the Suspension Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2) of the United States
Constitution.1 Gibbs named as defendants the Governor of Delaware and (by name)
every member of the Delaware state legislature, each of whom he asserts acted
unconstitutionally in enacting and ratifying § 6902. He seeks monetary damages, an order
enjoining defendants from passing “unconstitutional laws,” and a declaration that § 6902
is unconstitutional. Gibbs later amended his complaint once (to add the names of the
individual legislators), then filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint again. Gibbs
sought to add as defendants certain state-court judges on the basis of their allegedly
unconstitutional enforcement of § 6902.
The District Court granted Gibbs leave to proceed in forma pauperis. By
1
The statute provides, in relevant part, that “[e]very person imprisoned or restrained of
liberty . . . shall have remedy by the writ of habeas corpus, except persons committed or
detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth
in the commitment.” 10 Del. Code § 6902(1).
3
memorandum order entered July 19, 2007, the District Court dismissed his amended
complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denied his motion for leave to amend his
complaint a second time. Gibbs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District
Court denied by order entered November 13, 2007. Gibbs appeals.2
II.
Gibbs is proceeding in forma pauperis, so we review this appeal to determine
whether it should be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appeal is
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). We agree that Gibbs’s complaint was frivolous and that his proposed
amendment would have been futile for the reasons (including legislative immunity) amply
stated by the District Court. Our independent review reveals that, for those same reasons,
there is no arguable basis to challenge those rulings on appeal.
We note only two points that the District Court did not specifically address. First,
Gibbs seeks prospective injunctive relief. Legislative immunity does not extend to such
claims for relief in some cases, but it clearly extends to claims – like Gibbs’s here – that
would “seriously interfere” with the legislative function. See Baraka v. McGreevey, 481
2
The District Court dismissed Gibbs’s complaint without prejudice, but we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, both because the dismissal was in part pursuant
to § 1915(e) and because any amendment of the complaint would be futile. See Deutsch
v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d
950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976). Our review is plenary. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184
F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).
4
F.3d 187, 202-03 (3d Cir. 2007).
Second, the District Court concluded that Gibbs challenged only defendants’
actions and raised no direct challenge to the constitutionality of § 6902 itself. Gibbs’s
complaint, however, does seek a declaration that § 6902 is unconstitutional, apparently
contending that it somehow suspends the federal writ of habeas corpus. Even if there
were any merit to Gibbs’s challenge (which we do not decide), he does not allege that §
6902 impeded his ability to seek federal habeas relief in any way. In fact, he sought
federal habeas relief, which was denied for reasons unrelated to § 6902. Moreover, his
current incarceration is the result of the conviction that he unsuccessfully challenged in
his federal habeas proceeding, not the pre-trial detention from which he alleges § 6902
precluded him from obtaining state-court relief. Because Gibbs has not been injured by
any infirmity of the statute that he alleges, he lacks standing to challenge it. See
Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the
District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, as do we. See id.Gibbs’s motion for “entry of default” against appellees is denied. See Fed. R. App. P.
26(b), 31(a) and (c).
5