Reisinger v. Saylor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH R. REISINGER,

: 3:20-CV-0126

Plaintiff, :

: (JUDGE MARIANI)

V. : (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

JUDGE THOMAS G. SAYLOR, ETAL., :

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff Joseph R. Reisinger (“Reisinger”) filed a Complaint

Requesting the Reinstatement of the Plaintiffs Law License (Doc. 1). On January 28, 2020

Magistrate Judge Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 3)

recommending that Reisinger’s Complaint be dismissed. Reisinger filed Objections to the

R&R (Doc. 7) on March 3, 2020.1 Upon review of Magistrate Judge Carlson’s R&R,

Reisinger’s objections thereto, and all relevant filings, the Court will overrule the Objections

and adopt the pending R&R.

A District Court may “designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including

evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and

recommendations for the disposition” of certain matters pending before the Court. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). If a party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate

' As further discussed below, the Court notes that Reisinger’s objections were filed past the

February 25, 2020 deadline for filing. (See Doc. 6).

Judge's Report and Recommendation, the District Court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.” /d. at § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3: Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011).

The de novo standard applies only to objections which are both timely and specific. Goney

v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). “If a party does not object timely to a magistrate

judge's report and recommendation, the party may lose its right to de novo review by the

district court.” EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017). However,

“because a district court must take some action for a report and recommendation to become

a final order and because the authority and the responsibility to make an informed, final

determination remains with the judge, even absent objections to the report and

recommendation, a district court should afford some level of review to dispositive legal

issues raised by the report.” /d. at 100 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has described the appropriate level of review as

“reasoned consideration.” /d. (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987)).

Here, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R by realleging one of his original

grounds for relief. (Compare Doc. 1 with Doc. 7). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his

disbarment by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should be set aside and his law license

restored on the basis that, inter alia, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not stay his

disbarment proceedings despite his alleged incapacity during the proceedings. (Doc. 7 at ff

7-10). Because the objections were filed past the Court’s deadline (see Doc. 6), and

reallege, generally and without any supporting case law, that Reisinger’s incapacity should

have caused the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to stay his proceedings, the Court will conduct

“reasoned consideration” review. See Gyetvai v. Moran, 2019 WL 474050, at *1-2 (M.D. Pa.

2019) (applying reasoned consideration review to R&R and general objections thereto).

Upon this reasoned consideration, for the reasons set forth by Magistrate Judge

Carlson, Reisinger’s objections fail. Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, district

courts lack the jurisdiction “to review final judgments of a state court in judicial

proceedings.” Sfern v. Nix, 840 F.2d 208, 211 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting District of Columbia

Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983)); (see also Doc. 3 at 6-9 (finding that

Reisinger's claims fail under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine)). As explained by the Stern

Court, notably in the context of disbarment proceedings, a judicial proceeding is one which

requires adjudication by a state court, while a non-judicial proceeding is one that does not

require adjudication by a state court such as the promulgation of a court rule. /d. at 211.

The Stern Court thus held that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, while the district court

“may simply be asked to assess the validity of a rule promulgated in a nonjudicial

proceeding,” it may not entertain “challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases

arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's

action was unconstitutional.” /d. (emphasis in original) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486).

Here, as explained by Magistrate Judge Carlson, Reisinger is only challenging the

decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to disbar him. (See Doc. 3 at 6, 8). He is not

challenging the validity of any state court rule or its constitutionality, and even if he was, he

is only doing so incident to challenging the judicial proceeding against him. (See Doc. 3 at

8-9). According to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court cannot review the state court's

ruling and the complaint must be dismissed. Further, to the extent the state court

proceeding against him is ongoing, which is does not appear to be, the Younger doctrine

would also preclude this Court's review. (See Doc. 3 at 9-12 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401

U.S. 37 (1971) (“Indeed, we are constrained to observe that the court of appeals has

previously invoked Younger abstention to rebuff similar efforts to invite a federal court to

intervene in state bar disciplinary proceedings”). Additionally, the complaint, construed

properly as a § 1983 action, would be time-barred as it was filed more than 2 years after the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court's order. (See Doc. 3 at 13-15 (aggregating cases) (“Here, on

the face of this complaint, Mr. Reisinger’s § 1983 constitutional claims are plainly time-

barred . . . [these claims relate to a nearly 3-year old disbarment order.”)).

For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the R&R, the Court will

overrule Plaintiff's Objections, adopt the pending R&R, and dismiss Reisinger’s Complaint

Requesting the Reinstatement of the Plairtiff's e. Aseparate order follows.

eee

Robert D. Mariani

United States District Judge

;