Leon Green-Bey v. Atlantic County

ALD-032 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-2348
___________
LEON GREEN-BEY,
Appellant
v.
ATLANTIC COUNTY; ATLANTIC COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE;
ATLANTIC COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CRIMINAL COURT
COMPLEX; ATLANTIC COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CIVIL
DIVISION; QUAL-LYNX; ATLANTIC COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE;
JOHN DOES 1-10, SAID NAMES BEING UNKNOWN AND FICTITIOUS WHO
CONSPIRED TO INJURE AND DEPRIVE ME OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION; TODD MILLER; STANLEY L. BERGMAN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 1-21-cv-20143)
District Judge: Honorable Karen M. Williams
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 17, 2022
Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 9, 2022)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Leon Green-Bey, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, appeals from the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his
amended complaint. We will summarily affirm.
In the operative complaint, Green-Bey, proceeding in forma pauperis, sued the
Honorable Todd Miller, the New Jersey state judge presiding over his pending criminal
charges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Green-Bey, who is currently detained at the
Mercer County Correction Center, alleged that Judge Miller denied his right to Due
Process by subjecting him to pre-trial detention in New Jersey and that, because he did
not consent to prosecution under criminal law, he is not subject to it. Dkt. No. 20 at 2-5.
Green-Bey sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including the transfer of his federal
case from Camden to Newark, review by a panel of three judges, and an injunction
against Judge Miller. Dkt. No. 20 at 1-3, 5.
On July 7, 2022, the District Court screened his amended complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding
that Judge Miller is immune to the suit. Dkt. No. 21 at 3. The District Court also
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
concluded that, even if Judge Miller were not immune, Green-Bey’s request for relief
was barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Dkt. No. 21 at 4. Green-Bey filed
this timely appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over
the dismissal of the complaint. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
Upon review, we will affirm because no substantial question is presented on appeal. See
3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4.
The District Court properly dismissed Green-Bey’s amended complaint because
Green-Bey is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Green-Bey requested the District Court
to terminate the state criminal proceedings against him and transfer them to what he
considers to be a proper court, which the District Court correctly determined it must
abstain from doing. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45 (explaining that federal courts have
power to enjoin state officers from instituting criminal actions only “where the danger of
irreparable loss is both great and immediate”). The extraordinary circumstances that
would allow such interference do not exist here, so Green-Bey’s relief is squarely barred
by Younger.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --