Michael Thomas v. Andrew J. Jarbola, Iii

APS-306 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1594
________________
MICHAEL THOMAS,
Appellant
v.
ANDREW J. JARBOLA, III;
MARY ANNE GRIPPO, ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-01478)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
July 14, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed July 27, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Michael Thomas appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We conclude that the District Court’s decision was proper,

-- 1 of 3 --

Thomas does not name the Probation Department, his public defender or Judge1
Geroulo as a defendant in this case. We agree with the Magistrate Judge that any claim
against them would be properly dismissed.
2
and, therefore, will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Thomas is currently an inmate at the Lackawanna County Prison. In this § 1983
complaint, he alleges that Lackawanna County District Attorney Andrew Jarbola and
Lackawanna County Assistant District Attorney Mary Anne Grippo violated his Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thomas bases his claim on an alleged
conspiracy among ADA Grippo, DA Jarbola, the Probation Department, his public
defender and Honorable Vito P. Geroulo, who presided over Thomas’ criminal case. He1
claims the defendants conspired to have his public defender terminate representation and
manipulated the recommendation of the pre-sentence report in retaliation for his attempt
to withdraw his guilty plea. Thomas also claims that ADA Grippo and Judge Geroulo
conspired to misrepresent the maximum penalty for his offense and withheld the pre-
sentence report from him. Thomas seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 25, 2005, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and dismissed Thomas’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Thomas filed this timely appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may dismiss this appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in law. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Defendant Grippo is immune from suit for monetary

-- 2 of 3 --

3
damages because she was acting within the scope of her duties. See Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976). Thomas fails to state a claim as to defendant Jarbola because
there is no respondeat superior liability in § 1983 actions. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845
F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Thomas also failed to allege any racial or otherwise
class-based animus on the part of either defendant. See 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); United Bhd.
of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983). To the extent Thomas is
attempting to have the defendants removed from office, we agree that there is no basis for
providing such relief in this civil rights action. See 16 PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 16, § 1405(b)
(West 2001).
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).

-- 3 of 3 --