Michael R. Shemonsky v. Judge John J. Thomas

ALD-48 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3761
___________
MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY,
Appellant
v.
JUDGE JOHN J. THOMAS;
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA;
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-01667)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 8, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 27, 2007)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant, Michael Shemonsky, appeals the District Court’s order
dismissing his in forma pauperis civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

-- 1 of 2 --

In that complaint, Shemonsky alleged that Judge John J. Thomas, who presided over
appellant’s bankruptcy proceeding, improperly dismissed that action. Shemonsky sought
unspecified monetary damages. Concluding that Judge Thomas is immune from suit, the
District Court dismissed Shemonsky’s complaint. This timely appeal followed.
The District Court was correct to conclude that Shemonsky’s claims against Judge
Thomas are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. It is a well-established principle
that judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when
they act in a judicial capacity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)
(citation 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; rather, he will be
subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”).
Because the act that Shemonsky complains of – dismissal of his bankruptcy action – was
performed by Judge Thomas in his official capacity, Judge Thomas is entitled to judicial
immunity. See Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768-69 (3d Cir.
2000). As the District Court properly advised, should Shemonsky wish to challenge the
dismissal of the bankruptcy action referenced in the complaint, the appropriate remedy is
an appeal.
Having found no merit to this appeal, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
2

-- 2 of 2 --