ROBERT MAWSON; ROBBIE MAWSON, Minor v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Robert Mawson

ALD-286 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4971
________________
ROBERT MAWSON; ROBBIE MAWSON, Minor Plaintiff; CARISSA MAWSON
v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Robert Mawson,
Appellant
___________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-02150)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
June 28, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed July 10, 2007 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Robert Mawson appeals from the dismissal of his complaint by the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. We will dismiss the appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Despite Mawson’s assertion that the District Court erred in analyzing his
complaint under § 1983, there appears to be no other legal basis for his claims—all of
which accuse the CCP of violating his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we will also
review his complaint as falling within the ambit of § 1983.
In the aftermath of a custody dispute, Mawson—on behalf of himself and his
children—filed a complaint accusing the Court of Common Pleas for Luzerne County
(“CCP”) of “maliciously design[ing] and carr[ying]-out a process” to, among other
things, deny him and his children “their Constitutional right to family bond, associate and
visitation.” The District Court construed Mawson’s complaint as asserting civil rights
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 but dismissed it because the CCP is not a “person”
subject to liability for federal civil rights violations. Mawson timely appealed and
applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
Initially, we note that we have appellate jurisdiction despite the District Court’s
dismissal without prejudice because Mawson has elected to stand on his complaint.
Lucas v. Township of Bethel, 319 F.3d 595, 600 (3d Cir. 2003). Having granted Mawson
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we must now determine whether his appeal should be
dismissed as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Section 1983 imposes liability only upon “persons” who deprive others of “any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And
neither states nor divisions of state government are “persons” for purposes of § 1983
liability. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). Due to
Pennsylvania’s unitary court system, we consider all Pennsylvania courts, including the

-- 2 of 3 --

CCP, to be state entities not subject to § 1983 liability. Callahan v. City of Phila., 207
F.3d 668, 672-73 (3d Cir. 2000). As such, Mawson’s claims are without legal merit, and
we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) . As a result of our
disposition, we deny Mawson’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot.

-- 3 of 3 --