Dorothy I. Finch v. CHARLES A. BUECHEL, JR., Esquire

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5034
________________
DOROTHY I. FINCH,
Appellant
v.
CHARLES A. BUECHEL, JR., Esquire;
RICK SAMUEL FERRIS; JUDGE MAX BAER
___________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-01856)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 26, 2006
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed July 27, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
This appeal arises from the orders of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing Appellant Dorothy Finch’s complaint

-- 1 of 5 --

2
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with respect to defendants Baer and
Buechel and granting summary judgment in defendant Ferris’s favor.
In December 2004, Finch filed a civil rights Complaint seeking damages against
defendants Ferris, Buechel, and Baer, for actions taken in a medical malpractice action
brought by Finch against Ferris in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Finch
claimed that the defendants conducted a sham non-jury trial during which they
discriminated against her as a pro se plaintiff, and that they also conspired to violate her
civil rights and negligently failed to prevent the violation of her civil rights, all in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. She also raised a state law claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The District Court dismissed Finch’s civil rights claims against Buechel and Baer
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The District Court held that Finch
failed to allege that Buechel, Ferris’s private attorney in the medical malpractice action,
acted under color of state law and thus failed to state a claim pursuant to § 1983. The
District Court also held that Finch failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted as to the §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986 claims because Finch failed to allege that
Buechel discriminated against her on account of her race. The District Court determined
that defendant Baer was immune from suit under the doctrine of absolute judicial
immunity because all of actions Finch alleged that he took were performed within the
scope of his jurisdiction as the trial judge presiding over the medical malpractice action.

-- 2 of 5 --

We need not address the District Court’s ruling pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman1
Doctrine because we are affirming on other grounds.
3
The District Court also concluded that Finch’s claims against Baer were barred by the
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Finch filed a reconsideration motion which the District Court1
denied.
Ferris filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Finch failed to allege
state action under § 1983, and failed to state a claim under §§ 1981 and 1985 that Ferris
discriminated against her, or conspired to discriminate against her, on account of her race.
The District Court agreed, ruling that Finch failed to establish any nexus between Dr.
Ferris’s conduct and any deprivation of her constitutional rights “under color of state
law.” The District Court also determined that Finch’s status as a pro se plaintiff did not
make her a member of a class protected under § 1985. And the District Court held that
Finch failed failed state a claim under § 1981 because the record was devoid of any
indication that she belonged to a racial minority and that Dr. Ferris intentionally
discriminated against on account of her race. The District Court declined to exercise
jurisdiction over Finch’s state law claim. Finch filed a timely appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the order granting summary judgment. GFL Advantage Fund, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 272
F.3d 189, 198-99 (3d Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at

-- 3 of 5 --

4
199. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. When a
movant shows the absence of a genuine issue, however, the burden shifts to the
nonmovant to present evidence sufficient to permit a jury to find in her favor. Id. Our
review of the District Court’s dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is likewise
plenary. Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 221 (3 Cir. 1998). We accept asrd
true all factual allegations in the complaint and will affirm a dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) only if it is certain that no relief can be granted under any set of facts which
could be proved. Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Phillip Morris Inc.,
et al., 171 F.3d 912, 919 (3 Cir. 1999). We will affirm.rd
First, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion and reasoning that Judge Baer
is immune from suit. Turning to the § 1983 claims against the remaining defendants,
Finch must allege a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right and that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42 (1988); Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995).
Assuming all of Finch’s allegations against Buechel to be true, as we must, and viewing
the facts with respect to defendant Ferris in the light most favorable to Finch, we
conclude that there is no set of facts from which we can infer state action on the part of
defendants Buechel and Ferris. Ferris, through his private attorney, defended himself at
trial in Finch’s medical malpractice action. We find no nexus between Judge Baer and

-- 4 of 5 --

the private defendants Buechel and Ferris such that these private defendants may be fairly
treated as “state actors.”
Likewise, with respect to the § 1985 conspiracy claim, we find nothing in the
Complaint or in the record from which we can draw an inference of a racial or otherwise
class-based motive for the defendants’ alleged actions that would support a claim under §
1985(2) or (3). See Davis v. Township of Hillside, 190 F.3d 167, 171 (3d Cir. 1999) (§
1985(2)); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) (§ 1985(3)). Nor can we find
anything in the record or the Complaint from which we can infer an understanding among
defendants Baer, Buechel, and Ferris to deprive Finch of her constitutional rights on
account of her race. In the absence of a § 1985 conspiracy, Finch cannot state a claim
pursuant to § 1986. See Clark v. Clabaugh, 20 F.3d 1290, 1295 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1994).
We have thoroughly reviewed the remaining arguments Finch makes on appeal
and find them meritless. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 5 of 5 --