Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-21-2006
Rodenbaugh v. Augello
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3778
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Rodenbaugh v. Augello" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 859.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/859
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3778
________________
DAPHNE MARIE RODENBAUGH,
Appellant
v.
JOSEPH M. AUGELLO
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-01444)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
May 25, 2006
BEFORE: BARRY, SMITH AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 21, 2006)
___________________
OPINION
___________________
PER CURIAM
Daphne Marie Rodenbaugh appeals from the District Court’s order
dismissing sua sponte her civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
On July 19, 2005, Rodenbaugh, a resident of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that the defendant, a Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge presiding
over a civil suit brought by Rodenbaugh, caused her emotional distress and depression by
denying her “second amendment to proceed in forma pauperis.” She sought $500,000 in
damages. The District Court dismissed the action under the authority of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), holding that her action was barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial
immunity because the defendant’s alleged actions were within his jurisdiction.
Rodenbaugh timely appealed.
Rodenbaugh was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the appeal is
now before the Court for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under §
1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss an action or appeal if it (i) is frivolous or malicious,
(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary
damages from a defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either
legal or factual reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
After reviewing Rodenbaugh’s District Court pleadings and notice of appeal, we
conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed the Complaint for the reasons set
forth in the District Court’s memorandum opinion. Having found no legal merit to this
matter, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Appellant’s
motion to expedite the appeal and judgment is denied.
2