Sidney Jackson Sampson v. THOMAS H. XAVIOS, District Justice

DLD-388 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-1890
________________
SIDNEY JACKSON SAMPSON,
Appellant,
v.
THOMAS H. XAVIOS, District Justice;
PHILLIS J. KOWALSKI, District Justice;
JOHN DOE a/k/a Constable;
COMMONWEALTH DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE;
BERKS COUNTY
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-04990)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
____________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
September 20, 2007
BEFORE: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: October 17, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Sidney Jackson Sampson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from
an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

-- 1 of 3 --

2
dismissing his civil rights complaint. Because the appeal lacks an arguable basis in law,
we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Sampson filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Judges Thomas H. Xavios and
Phyllis J. Kowalski (“judicial defendants”); Berks County, Pennsylvania; and John Doe,
an unknown county official. Sampson alleges in his second amended complaint that he
was illegally arrested on several occasions over a seven-year period and that these arrests
were ordered by the judicial defendants for the purpose of harassing him. Sampson
claims that the defendants violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, and he requests declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief. Berks County
and the judicial defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. The District Court granted the motions to
dismiss, and Sampson now appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We agree with the District Court that the claims for money damages against the
judicial defendants are barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Nothing in
the complaint suggests that the judicial defendants were acting in a non-judicial capacity
or in the complete absence of jurisdiction when they engaged in the alleged misconduct.
See Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 443-44 (3d Cir. 2000). Moreover, Sampson
has not shown a basis for granting injunctive relief as to the judicial defendants. See 42
U.S.C. § 1983; Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303-04 (3d Cir. 2006). We also agree
with the District Court that Sampson has not shown grounds for holding Berks County

-- 2 of 3 --

3
liable under § 1983, as the pleadings do not set forth facts showing that the alleged
constitutional violations are attributable to an official county policy or custom. See
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Natale v.
Camden County Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583-85 (3d Cir. 2003).
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 3 of 3 --