Mark E. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, Division of Motor Vehicles

BPS-222 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1416
________________
MARK E. JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES; TOWNSHIP OF
LONG HILL MUNICIPAL COURT; JUDGE JAMES D. BRIDE; BRIDGEWATER
TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL COURT; JUDGE ROBERT J. FOLEY; OFFICER PETER
OCHS; SUMMIT MUNICIPAL COURT; JUDGE DONALD P. BOGOSIAN; FAR
HILLS BOROUGH MUNICIPAL COURT; JUDGE ROBERT K. HORNBY; OFFICER
JOSEPH DILLION; MORRIS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; SUPERIOR
COURT OF NEW JERSEY, LAW DIVISION SPECIAL CIVIL PART; JUDGE
RONALD B. GRAVES; CARMEN J. LIUZZA, JR.; DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY, DIVISION OF TAXATION; BEDMINSTER POLICE DEPARTMENT;
OFFICER TOM FINNERTY; MICHAEL DECAROLIS, OFFICER; FAR HILLS
BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT; JAMES H. HUNDLEY; H & R BLOCK, INC.;
BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP POLICE OFFICER PETER OCHS; HONORABLE
ROBERT J. FOLEY, JUDGE OF BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL
COURT; DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
JAMES H. HUNDLEY
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-2320)
District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg
_______________________________________
Submitted Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
APRIL 21, 2005
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 19, 2005)

-- 1 of 4 --

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1
2
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Mark E. Johnson appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against a
number of New Jersey state, municipal, and private actors. The appeal is frivolous, and
we will dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
On September 21, 2004, Johnson filed an amended complaint with the District
Court. The complaint lists a number of defendants, the majority of whom are involved in
separate unrelated incidents. On December 15, 2004, the District Court issued an order to
show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Johnson failed to respond. By order entered January 24, 2005, the District
Court dismissed the action. Johnson then brought this appeal.1
We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of the complaint. See Marran v.
Marran, 376 F.3d 143, 149 (3d Cir. 2004); Kilkenny v. Guy C. Long, Inc., 288 F.3d 116,
119 (3d Cir. 2002). To the extent Johnson appeals from the dismissal of his claims
relating to income tax, we do not agree that Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), is
dispositive. Flast bars taxpayer standing where the plaintiff challenges a particular
federal government spending program subject to extremely limited exceptions. Id. at

-- 2 of 4 --

3
101-03. Johnson, inversely, challenges the collection of income tax generally, by both the
United States and New Jersey. Even so, the appeal is completely lacking in legal merit.
The collection of income tax has long been deemed constitutional and arguments to the
contrary will not succeed. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; U.S. Const. amend XVI; see also
Lawrence v. State Tax Comm’n of Mississipi, 286 U.S. 276, 279-80 (1932) (discussing
the basis for state income tax).
To the extent Johnson seeks what amounts to an appeal from his motor vehicle
fines and convictions, he is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobile
Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. __, 2005 WL 711586, * 5-7 (Mar. 30, 2005).
To the extent Johnson does not seek to appeal his convictions, but rather challenges a
policy or procedure which is not an apparent appeal from the underlying judgment, he
either fails to state a claim or is barred. Specifically, with respect to each judicial
defendant, an appeal is frivolous because judges receive absolute judicial immunity for
actions performed in or related to their judicial role. See Gallas v. Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir. 2000).
Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claims against numerous police officers suffer from
a similar defect. Police are afforded qualified immunity in the performance of their jobs.
See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Johnson fails to allege that any of
the officers violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.” Id. (citations omitted). His remaining claims are

-- 3 of 4 --

4
unintelligible. Johnson did not attempt to clarify his pleadings in the District Court, nor
does he present any arguments from which we can infer his intent on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we will dismiss.

-- 4 of 4 --