Dr. Milos Jiricko v. Paul Allison, in His Official

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-4609
___________
DR. MILOS JIRICKO,
Appellant
v.
PAUL ALLISON, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITY;
SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC; JAMES C. HAGGERTY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-02099
(Honorable Thomas M. Golden)
_____________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 26, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 28, 2007)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM.
Milos Jiricko appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his suit against the Honorable Paul Allison of
the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (“Judge Allison”), James

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Haggerty, Esq., and Haggerty’s law firm, Swartz Campbell LLC. For the following
reasons, we will affirm.
Because we write only for the parties, it is not necessary to give a detailed
recitation of the factual and procedural background of this case. To summarize, Jiricko
instituted a civil suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County against GEICO
General Insurance Company (“GEICO”) and Stephanie Rollins, a GEICO claims
examiner, seeking recovery of uninsured motorist benefits and other damages (“Lancaster
County action”). Judge Allison, who was assigned to the case, issued an order on August
13, 2003 referring the matter to arbitration and staying further proceedings until
completion of arbitration. Since then, Jiricko has repeatedly argued in state and federal
court filings that Judge Allison’s order is invalid and infringes upon his constitutional
right to a trial by jury.
In this suit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania and transferred to the Eastern District, Jiricko asserts claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive
him of his federal constitutional rights during the course of the Lancaster County action.
He also claims that the defendants violated his rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution
and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. As relief, he requests an order directing
Judge Allison “to correct the record and to expunge his unconstitutional orders and to
cease his infringement upon the Pennsylvania citizens’ constitutional guaranty.” (Amend.
Compl. ¶ 42.) He also requests compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
The District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, concluding that the suit was barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
because the issues presented were inextricably intertwined with a prior state court
adjudication. Specifically, the District Court determined that Jiricko’s amended
complaint raised the same federal and state law claims that he had brought in an action
against the same defendants filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on July 1,
2004 (“Philadelphia action”). The Court of Common Pleas dismissed that suit on October
18, 2004 for failure to state a claim, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the
dismissal on August 25, 2005. Jiricko filed this suit during the pendency of his
unsuccessful petition for allocatur to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jiricko now appeals the District Court’s order. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a District Court’s dismissal under Rooker-
Feldman is plenary, Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 547
(3d Cir. 2006), and we may affirm the judgment on any ground supported by the record,
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).
We disagree with the District Court’s determination that the amended complaint
raises claims that were previously adjudicated in state court. We reach this conclusion
because the only specific instances of alleged misconduct referenced in the amended
complaint occurred after Jiricko instituted the Philadelphia action on July 1, 2004.
Specifically, the claims presented in this suit arise from the alleged mishandling of a
motion for sanctions that Jiricko filed in the Lancaster County action sometime in 2005.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Although the basis for the motion is unclear from the record, it appears that Jiricko
requested that the court sanction the defendants by denying Haggerty’s request to appear
in the Lancaster County action as Rollins’ attorney, denying Rollins leave to file a motion
for summary judgment, and awarding Jiricko $2,500.00 in court costs. The motion was
granted by Business Judge Michael J. Perezous in an order dated October 21, 2005.
However, Judge Allison vacated that order on November 15, 2005, explaining that Judge
Perezous’ order was inadvertently and prematurely entered. Jiricko claims that his
constitutional rights were violated as a result of Judge Allison’s decision to vacate the
order granting the motion for sanctions. He also believes that this incident evidences an
ongoing conspiracy between Judge Allison, Haggerty, and Swartz Campbell LLC.
Jiricko may not obtain monetary or injunctive relief based on his claims against
Judge Allison. Judges are immune from suits for damages arising from judicial acts,
unless the acts were taken “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Gallas v.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 767-69 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations 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.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
356 (1978). Jiricko’s amended complaint does not explain how Judge Allison may be
held liable for performing a judicial act in a case to which he was assigned. Nor does the
amended complaint set forth facts indicating that Jiricko has satisfied the requirements
stated in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for obtaining injunctive relief from a judicial defendant. See
Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303-04 (3d Cir. 2006).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
We further conclude that the amended complaint fails to state a conspiracy claim
under § 1983. The allegations of an ongoing conspiratorial relationship between Judge
Allison, Haggerty, and Swartz Campbell LLC are entirely conjectural. The mere fact that
Judge Allison issued orders that were unfavorable to Jiricko is insufficient to give rise to
an inference of an agreement between the defendants to deprive Jiricko of his rights. In
sum, the allegations of conspiracy fall well short of satisfying the liberal notice-pleading
standard of FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a). See Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 175 (3d Cir. 2007).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 5 of 5 --