Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Dismissal of an attorney's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against four New Jersey Superior Court judges, the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC), and its director and counsel is affirmed where: 1) the criminal allegations against the judges are related to actions they took as judges and plaintiff has not set forth any facts that would show that any of the judges acted in the absence of jurisdiction; 2) plaintiff's criminal claims fail to state a cause of action under section 1983, as individual citizens do not have a constitutional right to the prosecution of alleged criminals; 3) plaintiff failed to state a section 1983 claim for one of the judge's alleged improper influence; 4) district court properly dismissed plaintiff's five claims for attorney's fees and costs based on the alleged constitutional violations because, to the extent that plaintiff's pro se complaint can be read to include claims against the director and counsel of ACJC in their individual capacities, they are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and thus not subject to suit for injunctive relief; and 5) plaintiff's claim that New Jersey Court Rule 2:15 violates the New Jersey Constitution is rejected.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Opinion Filed November 30, 2009
Per Curiam Opinion