Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Amro A. ELANSARI Appellant v. Pamela RUEST; United States Marine Corps
OPINION *
Amro Elansari appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed his complaint because the defendants were immune from suit. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.1
In his complaint, Elansari alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when the U.S. Marine Corps did not allow him to enlist because he was on probation. Elansari stated that he then applied for early termination of his probation in Pennsylvania’s Centre County Court of Common Pleas for “good behavior.” D.C. Dkt. No. 2, ¶ 3. Elansari alleged that Judge Pamela Ruest committed “fraud” when she denied his request. See id. ¶ 15.
The District Court properly dismissed Elansari’s claims against the Marine Corps, as federal agencies are shielded by sovereign immunity absent an explicit waiver. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). And the District Court’s dismissal of Elansari’s claims against Judge Ruest on the basis of judicial immunity was also proper, as Elansari’s claims challenged Judge Ruest’s decision to deny his application for early termination of probation; that decision was within her jurisdiction. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (“A judge ․ will be subject to liability only when [s]he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’ ” (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871))). Elansari’s conclusory allegation that Judge Ruest used “outside-of-the-courtroom procedural tactics to deprive [him] of a fair opportunity to challenge” his conviction, Appellant’s Br. 12, does not defeat that immunity.2
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
FOOTNOTES
1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2. Because the Defendants were immune from suit, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without allowing Elansari to amend it. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (indicating that a district court should give a plaintiff leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile).
PER CURIAM
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-3021
Decided: March 10, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)