Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-5-2007
Catanzaro v. Jones
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4011
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Catanzaro v. Jones" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1340.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1340
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-146 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 06-4011
________________
ANTHONY P. CATANZARO,
Appellant
v.
JUDGE JOHN E. JONES; JUDGE CHESTER T. HARHUT;
JUDGE JOHN S. COTTONE; COURT ADMINISTRATOR
WILLIAM J. MURRAY; BRIAN J. CALI;
PAUL SOTAK; JOSEPHINE CATANZARO
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. PA. Civ. No. 05-cv-01909)
District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly
________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 8, 2007
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 5, 2007)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
Anthony P. Catanzaro appeals pro se from an order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his § 1983 complaint alleging
violations of his constitutional rights in divorce proceedings and a prior civil rights action.
In September 2005, Catanzaro filed a § 1983 complaint, asserting that the
defendants conspired to violate his rights to due process, meaningful access to the courts,
and equal protection by effecting the dismissal of his federal civil rights action in
Catanzaro v. County of Lackawanna, et al., Civ. A. No. 01-01865 (M.D. Pa., Nov. 1,
2002). He alleges that Judges Cottone and Murray, Special Divorce Master Sotak,
Catanzaros’ ex-wife, Josephine, and her attorney, Brian Cali, “were believed to be”
members of a plan or agreement between Judges Harhut and Jones to deny Catanzaro’s
Constitutional rights. He claims that Judge Jones evidenced his prejudice against
Catanzaro in Civ. A. No. 01-01865 by referring to him in various interlocutory orders as a
“disgruntled divorce litigant.” According to Catanzaro’s allegations, Judge Jones
declined to disqualify himself and proceeded to deny all of Catanzaro’s motions and grant
the defendants’ motions, including their Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motions. He claims that
Judge Harhut conspired with Judge Jones by encouraging Judge Jones to deny Catanzaro
due process, access to the courts, and equal protection, in the federal civil rights action,
just as Judge Harhut did in Catanzaro’s divorce proceedings in 1997. He also alleged that
the state defendants conspired in ordering the execution of a temporary Protection from
Abuse Act order against him. He seeks damages and counsel fees.
After the defendants filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, Catanzaro filed a
motion to amend his complaint, which the District Court granted in May 2006, ordering
that Catanzaro file the amended complaint within fifteen days. The District Court denied
2
Catanzaro’s requests to extend the time for filing an amended complaint.1 On August 7,
2006, the District Court granted the defendants’ Rule 12 dismissal motions.
The District Court held that the Complaint was barred by the applicable two-year
statute of limitations. Noting that Catanzaro alleged a conspiracy beginning in 1997 and
ending in 2002, the District Court determined that Catanzaro knew or should have known
of the injury upon which his civil rights action was based when Judge Jones dismissed the
complaint and denied consideration in Civ. A. No. 01-01965 in late 2002, and at the very
latest in January 2003, when Catanzaro filed a notice of appeal. Using that latest date, the
District Court calculated that Catanzaro § 1983 complaint, filed in September 2005, was
at least eight months too late. The District Court ruled that Catanzaro’s action against the
judicial defendants was barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, in any event, because
the Complaint alleged acts performed by the judges within the scope of their judicial
duties, specifically, making rulings unfavorable to Catanzaro. Thus, the judicial
defendants enjoy absolute immunity from Catanzaro’s suit for damages against them.
See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). The District Court also summarily granted the
non-judicial defendants’ Rule 12 dismissal motions, which claimed that the Complaint
failed to allege an “agreement” among or between any of the defendants to deprive
Catanzaro of his constitutional rights, and failed to allege state action under § 1983 , to
the extent that Catanzaro raised non-conspiracy related claims against private-party
1
For the reasons set forth in its opinion, the District Court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion to extend the time for filing an amended complaint.
3
defendants Brian Cali and Josephine Catanzaro. Catanzaro timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will summarily affirm for
essentially the same reasons set forth by the District Court in its Order entered August 7,
2006. The District Court properly held that the Complaint was time-barred.
Because the § 1983 Complaint was properly dismissed and no substantial question
is presented by this appeal, Appellee Cali’s motion for summary affirmance is granted
and the District Court’s judgment will be affirmed. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and
I.O.P. 10.6.
4