Kason Jamison v. Chrislyn Morgan

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1462
__________
KASON JAMISON,
Appellant
v.
CHRISLYN MORGAN; JORGE COONS; NANCY RIDGEWAY; JANNETTE
MURRAY; DAWN DOUGHERTY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-10154)
District Judge: Honorable Edward S. Kiel
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 26, 2025
Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 1, 2026)
___________
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
Kason Jamison appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm
the District Court’s decision.
In October 2024, Jamison initiated a federal civil rights action in the District
Court. Jamison included no specific factual allegations against any of the named
defendants in his complaint — state court judges, court employees, and the mother of his
child. However, it appeared that Jamison sought to raise civil rights claims based on his
dissatisfaction with various orders relating to child support and custody proceedings in
New Jersey state court. After granting Jamison leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the
District Court screened and dismissed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), explaining that his sparse allegations failed to comply with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jamison timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a District Court’s
decision to dismiss a complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
abuse of discretion, Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019), and we
exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
The District Court appropriately dismissed Jamison’s complaint, as it was largely
incomprehensible. Although Jamison seemed to disagree with the outcome of various
state court proceedings and made general arguments about the jurisdiction of the state
court, his complaint contained no factual allegations of any action taken by any defendant

-- 2 of 4 --

3
that allegedly violated his rights and thus failed to put any defendant on notice of
potential claims against them. See Garrett, 938 F.3d at 93 (“[A] pleading that is so vague
or ambiguous that a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to respond to it will not
satisfy Rule 8.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Further, granting Jamison leave to amend would have been futile under the
circumstances of this case. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 106 (3d
Cir. 2002). Jamison includes new allegations for the first time on appeal regarding the
procedural history of his state court proceedings. However, even if he had raised these
allegations in an amended complaint, they would not have survived dismissal. Jamison
cannot bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the mother of his child, as she is a
private actor. See Benn v. Universal Health Sys., Inc., 371 F.3d 165, 169-71 (3d Cir.
2004). The state court judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for their
decisions in Jamison’s proceedings, as it appears that Jamison disagrees with those
decisions but has not provided factual allegations that could show that the judges engaged
in nonjudicial acts or took actions “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” See
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 12 (1991) (per curiam). Jamison’s only mention of the
remaining defendants vaguely suggests that they somehow conspired against him or
failed to respond to documents he sent them at unidentified times, which would not be
sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.1
1 Jamison’s motion to expedite this appeal is denied.

-- 4 of 4 --