Robert I. Archie v. Hamilton Township Municipal Court

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-2568
__________
ROBERT I. ARCHIE,
Appellant
v.
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL COURT; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
DOUGLASS HOFFMAN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-20975)
District Judge: Honorable Georgette Castner
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 6, 2025
Before: SHWARTZ, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 11, 2025)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Robert I. Archie appeals from District Court’s orders dismissing his complaint as
to Judge Douglas Hoffman and granting summary judgment in favor of the Hamilton
Township Municipal Court. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
I
Archie filed suit against Defendants the Hamilton Township Municipal Court and
the Judge Hoffman1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Archie alleged that he was punished
by Judge Hoffman, a judge on the Hamilton County Municipal Court, on a charge that
had already been dismissed. Archie alleged that Judge Hoffman was specifically liable
because he was the one who handed down the sentence. He sought Judge Hoffman’s
removal from the bench and monetary damages.
The District Court granted Judge Hoffman’s motion to dismiss, finding that Archie
had failed to adequately describe how Judge Hoffman had violated his constitutional
rights and that Judge Hoffman was entitled to judicial immunity. Subsequently, the case
moved forward to discovery against the sole remaining Defendant, the Hamilton
Township Municipal Court.
Discovery fleshed out the underlying state court proceedings against Archie in the
Municipal Court. Archie had been charged with assault. A public defender was appointed
to represent Archie, but Archie was required to pay a $200.00 fee for the public defender
to represent him. That assault charge was ultimately dismissed. Archie was not through
1 Archie also sued the State of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the State of New
Jersey as a Defendant early in this case and it does not appear that Archie appeals that
decision. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the State of New Jersey had immunity. See,
e.g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
though with proceedings in the Municipal Court as he also had two traffic violations for
which he was ordered to pay fines. Archie did not pay the fines or the fee for his public
defender, and Judge Hoffman ordered him to perform community service in lieu of the
fines imposed.
Ultimately, after discovery concluded, the Hamilton Township Municipal Court
moved for summary judgment. The District Court gave multiple reasons for granting
summary judgment in favor of the Hamilton Township Municipal Court. Among its
reasons, the District Court held that the Municipal Court could not be held vicariously
liable for the judicial actions of Judge Hoffman and that Archie failed to show the
existence of a policy or custom that resulted in a constitutional violation to potentially
make the Municipal Court liable under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Archie then filed this appeal.
II
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s dismissal and summary judgment orders. See Dondero v. Lower
Milford Twp., 5 F.4th 355, 358 (3d Cir. 2021); Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d
116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
III
The District Court properly dismissed the claims against Judge Hoffman. As the
District Court observed, Archie’s conclusory, undeveloped allegations were not “enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Further,
Judge Hoffman retained judicial immunity for his judicial acts even if any “action . . .
was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of [the judge’s] authority.” Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).
The Court also correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Municipal
Court. Assuming arguendo that Archie could overcome the other bars to relief identified
by the District Court,2 Archie still could not hold the Municipal Court liable under a
respondeat superior theory of liability for Judge Hoffman’s actions. See Rode v.
Dellaciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Furthermore, Archie did not
sufficiently state, much less demonstrate, any violation resulting from a policy, practice
or custom under Monell to survive summary judgment on his claim against the Municipal
Court. See Monell, 436 U.S. 690-91. Thus, we will affirm.
2 We need not consider the District Court’s alternative additional rationales for why the
Municipal Court was entitled to summary judgment in light of this holding.

-- 4 of 4 --