KWANZAA v. REYNOLDS et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:25-cv-19061-MAS-TJB Document 48 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2 PagelD:
<pagelD>

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAKA KWANZAA,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 25-19061 (MAS) (TJB)
Vv.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

ADMINISTRATOR REYNOLDS, ef al.,

Defendants.

SHIPP, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon the order of the Honorable Susan D. Wigenton,
U.S.D.J., (ECF No. 46) directing limited review of Plaintiff Chaka Kwanzaa’s (“Plaintiff”) claims
under Local Civil Rule 40.1(h). The Court determines that Plaintiffs claims against Judge
Wigenton in the Third Amended Complaint (the “TAC”) (ECF No, 43) are barred by judicial
immunity.

Plaintiff's allegations concerning Judge Wigenton are limited to two notes at the top of the
TAC stating: (1) “Note: All named [jJudges are being sued ‘only [fJor [a]dministrative errors
only’”; and (2) “Note: To hinder [rJei[]terating dates and times [flor de[f]endants (Reynolds, K.
Williams[,] Wigenton, Combs, ... ) Plainti[ff] asserts claims, dates and times noted in the
[September 1, 2026,] [I]Jeave to amend on [flile.’ (TAC 1.) In the second “note,” Plaintiff is
referencing his September 1, 2026, correspondence and motion regarding leave to file an updated
amended complaint (ECF Nos. 31-32). Neither of these filings references Judge Wigenton or

specific actions she has taken.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 3:25-cv-19061-MAS-TJB Document 48 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2 PagelD:
<pagelD>

Under Local Civil Rule 40.1(h), this Court’s role is to determine whether this action against
Judge Wigenton is “patently frivolous or judicial immunity applies.” The Court finds that, even if
Plaintiff has stated a nonfrivolous claim concerning Judge Wigenton’s alleged “administrative
errors,” Judge Wigenton is immune from any such claims because “judges maintain immunity for
[judicial] actions taken in error.” Stephens v. Martini, No. 22-1971, 2022 WL 1237786, at
*3 (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2022) (citing Capogrosse v. Sup. Ct. of NJ, 588 F.3d 180, 183 Gd Cir. 2009);
see also Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 Gd Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“A judicial officer in
the performance of h[er] duties has absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for h[er]
judicial acts... . [even if] the action [s]he took was in error[.]” (citation omitted)). Plaintiff has
pleaded no facts suggesting that the exceptions to judicial immunity—whether in actions secking
damages or injunctive relief—apply here. (See generally TAC); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,
11-12 (1991) (describing two exceptions for damages claims); Azwbuko, 443 F.3d at
304 (describing exceptions for injunctive relief claims).

Accordingly,

IT IS, on this_{(thday of October 2026, ORDERED as follows:

1, Plaintiffs claims against Judge Susan D. Wigenton are DISMISSED.

2. The Clerk of Court shall notify the Chief Judge of this decision to allow for a

determination about reassignment of this case.

MICHAELA. SHIPP v
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE