# Bressi v. Northumberland County Court

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · January 5, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10414100

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 5, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10414100

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AARON J. BRESSI, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-1878

Plaintiff :

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY :
COURT, et al.,
:

Defendant :

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the court in this fee-paid pro se civil rights lawsuit is
the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito Jr.,
(Doc. 24), dated October 20, 2023. Judge Saporito conducted the legally
required screening review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, (Doc. 17), and
recommends that it be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a timely
objection to Judge Saporito’s report. (Doc. 25). However, based on its own
review of the record as described below, the court agrees with Judge
Saporito’s recommendation and will dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint
with prejudice.
I. Legal Standard
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard of review is

de novo, the district court “may also, in the exercise of sound judicial
discretion, rely on the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Bynum v. Colvin, 198 F. Supp 3d 434, 437 (E.D. Pa.

2016) (citing United Stated v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
District courts also have an on-going statutory obligation to
preliminarily review a pro se complaint to determine whether any claims are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

See 28 U.S.C. '1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This statutory text mirrors the language of
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a
complaint should be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
In determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief, a court
must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and accept “all reasonable

inferences that can be drawn from them after construing them in the light
most favorable to the non-movant.” Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien &
Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). However, a court is not required

to accept legal conclusions or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action.” Id.; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice”).
When reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must construe such
complaints liberally “so ‘as to do substantial justice.’” Alston v. Parker, 363

F. 3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting R. Civ. P. 8(f)). The court must apply
the relevant law even if the pro se plaintiff does not mention it by name.
Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F. 3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Higgins v.
Beyer, 293 F. 3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)).

II. Discussion
Since the report correctly states the procedural and factual background
of this case, (Doc. 24, at 1-3), it will not be repeated herein. In short this is a

lawsuit against a host of state courts, judges, prosecutors, court clerks,
prothonotaries, and hearing officers challenging their handling of Plaintiff’s
pro se filings in connection with post-conviction collateral relief proceedings
in his underlying state criminal case.

At the onset Judge Saporito found that the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and the Northumberland
County Court of Common Pleas are arms of the Pennsylvania state

government, and thus they are immune from suit under the Eleventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Benn v. First Judicial Dist.
Of Pa., 426 F. 3d 233, 240 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that the Pennsylvania

courts are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit). Plaintiff does
not object to this finding. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against these three
state court defendants will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Saporito also found that Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining
individual Defendants are all bared by absolute judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiff’s claim against Judge Rosini, the presiding

judge in his state court criminal proceedings, is barred by absolute judicial
immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1991) (per curium).
Plaintiff’s claims against county prosecutors, Mr. Matulewicz and Ms.

Zenzinger, are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). Plaintiff’s claims against court clerks
and prothonotaries based on their handling of litigation papers he submitted
for filings with their courts, are barred by quasi-judicial immunity. See

Marcedes v. Barrett, 453 F.2s 391, 392 (3d Cir. 1971). Likewise, Plaintiff’s
claim against Ms. Skoff, in connection with her actions taken in her role as a
custody and PFA hearing officer for the court of common pleas, is barred by
quasi-judicial immunity as well. See Lepre v. Tolerico, 156 Fed. App’x 522,
525 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curium).

Plaintiff objects to these findings arguing that judges and district
attorneys, including assistant district attorneys, will be deprived of their
immunity and subject to liability when they acted in the clear absence of all

jurisdiction. In support of this proposition Plaintiff cites Stump v. Sparkman,
where the Supreme Court held “[a] judge will not be deprived of immunity
because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has

acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978).
However, in the same case the Supreme Court also found that where a judge
presides over a court of general jurisdiction, “neither the procedural errors

he may have committed nor the lack of a specific statute authorizing his
approval of the petition in question rendered him liable in damages for the
consequences of his actions.” Id. at 359–60.
Here Plaintiff does not plead any facts that would indicate Judge Rosini

acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. In his objection to Judge Saporito’s
report Plaintiff appears to assert that Defendants failed to follow court rules
and procedures, but according to the case cited by Plaintiff, Judge Rosini,

who presides over a court of general jurisdiction, is not liable in damages for
procedural errors or even acting without specific statutory authorization.
Likewise, the authority cited by Plaintiff does not even mention an exception

to prosecutorial immunity. Thus, neither Judge Rosini nor the individual
prosecutor Defendants will be deprived of their absolute judicial or
prosecutorial immunity.

Plaintiff appears to further object to Judge Saporito’s findings regarding
Defendants’ immunity on the basis that these Defendants violated his clearly
established statutory and constitutional rights and therefore are not entitled
to qualified immunity. However, Judge Saporito found that Defendants are

entitled to absolute judicial, quasi-judicial, and prosecutorial immunity not
qualified immunity. Thus, this objection is of no moment.
Plaintiff also generally objects to Judge Saporito’s report on the basis

that Judge Saporito did not liberally construe his complaint and fails to
distinguish between Plaintiff’s due process and government negligence
claims. However, based on its review of the complaint the court finds that
Judge Saporito liberally construed the complaint in making his

recommendations. Based on the plain text of Plaintiff’s amended complaint
the exact or even general nature of his claims is unclear. Nonetheless Judge
Saporito construed the largely incoherent statements in the amended

complaint into a potential due process claim. The fact that Judge Saporito
does not distinguish such a claim from Plaintiff’s government negligence
claim ultimately does not matter because all the Defendants are entitled to

either sovereign, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutorial immunity from all
claims whether they sound in tort or the constitution. Accordingly, all of
Plaintiff’s claims against the individual Defendants will be dismissed.

Judge Saporito recognizes that generally a district court must permit a
curative amendment, prior to dismissing a complaint, unless an amendment
would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.
3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). However, he found that based on the fact alleged

in Plaintiff’s amended complaint and Plaintiff’s substantial history of meritless
or frivolous serial litigation, further amendments would be futile.1 This court

1 See Bressi v. Gembic, No. 23-5318, 2023 WL 6558730 (U.S. Oct.
10, 2023) (dismissing petition for writ of certiorari and instructing that, “[a]s
petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed
not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless
the docketing fee . . . is paid and the petition” complies with booklet
formatting rules); Bressi v. McCloud, No. 23-5316, 2023 WL 6558728 (U.S.
Oct. 10, 2023) (same); Bressi v. Brennen, No. 23-5317, 2023 WL 6379069
(U.S. Oct. 2, 2023) (same); see also Bressi v. Pa. Parole Bd., No. 4:23-CV-
00440, 2023 WL 5184965 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2023); Bressi v.
Northumberland Cnty. CYS, Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-1776, 2023 WL
3919751 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2023), R&R adopted, 2023 WL 3919543 (M.D.
Pa. June 9, 2023), appeal filed, No. 23-2156 (3d Cir. June 29, 2023); Bressi
v. Pa. Parole Bd., No. 1:21-CV-01265, 2022 WL 617117 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 2,
2022), aff ’d per curiam, No. 22-1462, 2022 WL 17337570 (3d Cir. Nov. 30,
2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2485 (2023); Bressi v. McCloud, Civil Action
No. 4:18-cv-01345, 2019 WL 7372778 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2019), R&R
(footnote continued on next page)
agrees. Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once and even when
viewed in the light most favorable to him his amended complaint is still devoid

of facts cable of supporting a cognizable claim against any Defendant let
alone those entitled to sovereign or absolute immunity. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s amendment complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing the Report and Recommendation of Judge
Saporito, (Doc. 24), will be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of
the court. Plaintiff’s objections, (Doc. 25), will be OVERRULED, and his

amended complaint, (Doc. 17), will be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk
of Court will be directed to close this case. An appropriate order follows.

S/ Malachy E. Mannion_
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: January 5, 2024
22-cv-1878

adopted, 2019 WL 7290430 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2019), aff ’d per curiam, No.
20-1077, 2021 WL 5054351 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.
1383 (2022); Bressi v. Brennen, Civil Action No. 4:17cv-01742, 2019 WL
5092529 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2019), R&R adopted, 2019 WL 4386897 (M.D.
Pa. Sept. 13, 2019), aff ’d per curiam, 823 Fed. App’x 116 (3d Cir. 2020),
cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1705 (2021); Bressi v. Gembic, Civil Action No. 4:17-
cv-01405, 2018 WL 3596859 (M.D. Pa. July 2, 2018), R&R adopted, 2018
WL 3584694 (M.D. Pa. July 26, 2018), aff ’d per curiam, 752 Fed. App’x 113
(3d Cir. 2019),cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 166 (2019).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10414100. Public record. Not legal advice.