Robert C. Weldon v. DISTRICT COURT WILLIAM W. CALDWELL On Appeal From the United States District Court…

BLD-346 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1487
______________________________________
ROBERT C. WELDON,
Appellant
v.
DISTRICT COURT
WILLIAM W. CALDWELL
______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-00243)
District Judge: Richard P. Conaboy
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
August 16, 2007
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND VANANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: September 19, 2007)
____________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Robert C. Weldon, a Pennsylvania prisoner, appeals the District Court’s
order dismissing his in forma pauperis civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. In that complaint, Weldon alleged that Judge William W. Caldwell, who is
presiding over a separate civil rights action brought by Weldon, improperly dismissed his
motion for summary judgment to “advance the private interests of the defendants.”

-- 1 of 2 --

Weldon sought monetary damages and noted that “the rest of what [he] want[s] [the court]
to do for [him] will be discussed at the appropriate time!” Concluding that Judge Caldwell
is immune from suit, the District Court dismissed Weldon’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). Weldon appealed.
Weldon’s claims against Judge Caldwell are barred by the doctrine of judicial
immunity. It is a well-established principle that judges are absolutely immune from suits
for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they act in a judicial capacity. See Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (citation omitted) (“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.’”). Because the act that Weldon complains of –
dismissing his motion for summary judgment – was performed by Judge Caldwell in his
official capacity, Judge Caldwell is entitled to judicial immunity. See Gallas v. Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir. 2000).
Having found no merit to this appeal, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Weldon’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
________________________
2

-- 2 of 2 --