Ifeoma Ezekwo v. JOSEPH G. MONAGHAN JSC Individually

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-2231
__________
IFEOMA EZEKWO,
Appellant
v.
JOSEPH G. MONAGHAN JSC Individually and in his official capacity as Justice of the
Superior Court, Bergen County, New Jersey; MICHAEL GUERRA, Individually and in
his capacity as Court Officer of Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County;
SHERIFF CURETON, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Bergen
County, New Jersey; YAJAIRA ALONZO; TYREE BALMER; CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-05155)
District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 23, 2024
Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 29, 2024)
___________
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 5 --

2
Ifeoma Ezekwo appeals pro se from an order granting the defendants’ motions to
dismiss her complaint, which contained allegations stemming from a dispute over the
return of a rental property security deposit that had been paid to Ezekwo. We will affirm.
In 2021, Ezekwo filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. Ezekwo cited fifteen purported bases for relief, including, among
other things, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “abuse of process,” and “blatant discrimination.” She
named as defendants New Jersey Superior Court Judge Joseph G. Monaghan, Court
Officer Michael Guerra, and Bergen County Sheriff Anthony Cureton.1 According to the
complaint, Ezekwo’s tenant obtained a state court judgment against her in the amount of
$4667 but, when Ezekwo attempted to satisfy the judgment by delivering the money to
the state court, Judge Monaghan “refused to accept the money.” Ezekwo also alleged
that Guerra obtained a warrant to satisfy the judgment by “fil[ing] . . . false information
with Judge Monaghan” and harassed Ezekwo’s tenant. The complaint further alleged
that Sheriff Cureton was “obligated by law to inform [Ezekwo] of any planned levy but
did not do so.” Ezekwo sought money damages and injunctive relief. Judge Monaghan,
Guerra, and Sheriff Cureton separately moved to dismiss Ezekwo’s complaint. The
District Court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that Judge Monaghan and Guerra
were immune from suit and that Ezekwo failed to state a claim against Sheriff Cureton.
1 The complaint named additional defendants but the District Court dismissed them under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect service. Ezekwo does not
challenge that dismissal.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
The District Court also provided Ezekwo with leave to amend within 30 days of the entry
of its order. Rather than file an amended complaint, Ezekwo filed a notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
977 F.2d 848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52
(3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). We exercise de novo review over the District Court’s grant
of a motion to dismiss. See Newark Cab Ass’n v. City of Newark, 901 F.3d 146, 151 (3d
Cir. 2018). To survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true,” to show that its claims are facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The District Court properly determined that Judge Monaghan and Guerra are
entitled to immunity. Judges and judicial officers generally are immune from civil suits
for money damages for actions taken in their judicial capacity. Mireles v. Waco, 502
U.S. 9, 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam); Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 2006)
(per curiam) (“A judicial officer in the performance of his duties has absolute immunity
from suit and will not be liable for his judicial acts.”). Ezekwo’s claims against Judge
Monaghan and Guerra principally focused on the entry and enforcement of the state court
judgment. Such actions plainly were taken in their judicial capacities. To the extent that
Ezekwo claimed that the actions were incorrect or improper, those allegations are
insufficient to defeat immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).
Although “absolute judicial immunity extends only to claims for damages,” Larsen v.
Senate of the Commonwealth, 152 F.3d 240, 249 (3d Cir. 1998), “in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,

-- 3 of 5 --

4
injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or
declaratory relief was unavailable.” § 1983. Nothing in Ezekwo’s complaint suggests
that this exception applies. See Azubuko, 443 F.3d at 303-04.
We also agree that Ezekwo failed to state a claim against Sheriff Cureton. As
noted, above, Ezekwo alleged that Sheriff Cureton was “obligated by law to inform [her]
of any planned levy but did not do so.” This vague allegation was insufficient to state a
claim under any of the fifteen purported legal theories identified in the complaint. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Ezekwo also suggested that Sheriff Cureton
was liable because he supervised Guerra. It is well settled, however, that liability under
§ 1983 may not be based on the doctrine of respondeat superior. See Durmer v.
O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 n.14 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Santiago v. Warminster Twp.,
629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (“Particularly after Iqbal, the connection between the
supervisor’s directions and the constitutional deprivation must be sufficient to
demonstrate a plausible nexus or affirmative link between the directions and the specific
deprivation of constitutional rights at issue.”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). In any event, Ezekwo’s complaint makes clear that Guerra was employed by
the state courts, not the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office.2
2 Sheriff Cureton attached to his motion to dismiss the declaration of a payroll supervisor
for the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office, who explained that Guerra was not an employee.
To the extent that the District Court relied on the declaration, it should have converted the
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Hancock Indus. v.
Schaeffer, 811 F.2d 225, 229 (3d Cir. 1987). Any error, however, is harmless, as there is
no set of facts on which Ezekwo could possibly recover. See Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d
331, 342 (3d Cir. 1989).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 5 of 5 --