The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDA WOLFSON, Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss
filed by Defendant Honorable Daniel Bernardin ("Judge
Bernardin"), a Municipal Court Judge in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Judge Bernardin is seeking to dismiss the complaint filed against
him by Plaintiff pro se Victoria Perry ("Plaintiff" or "Ms.
Perry"). The issue before Court is whether Plaintiff's claims
against Judge Bernardin can survive a motion to dismiss. This
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the
reasons stated below, Judge Bernardin's motion to dismiss is
granted. I. BACKGROUND
In 1996 or 1997, Evan Laine, Esq. represented Ms. Perry's
mother, Ollie, in a personal injury suit. In 1998, Ms. Perry
moved into the house across the street from Evan Laine and his
family, on Saxby Terrace in Cherry Hill. In December 1998, Evan
Laine and his law firm, Gold & Laine, P.C., agreed to represent
Ms. Perry's mother once again. In 1999, Ms. Perry sent her
neighbors, the Laines, various unsolicited items, including a
disturbing letter discussing Plaintiff's religious beliefs,
volunteering that Plaintiff was a virgin, and describing several
sexual acts in great detail. In September 1999, the Honorable
Francis J. Orlando, A.J.S.C. issued an order granting leave for
Defendant Evan Laine and his law firm, Gold & Laine, P.C. to be
relieved as counsel to Ms. Perry's mother. In March 2000,
Plaintiff twice attempted to file criminal charges against
Defendants Evan Laine and Jeffrey Gold, a partner at Mr. Laine's
law firm, for perjury, harassment, conspiracy and other charges.
The Honorable Jeffrey Karl, J.M.C. and the Honorable John
McFeeley, J.M.C. found that there was no probable cause on either
occasion. In July 2000, Ms. Perry filed a statement with the
Cherry Hill Police Department accusing Judge Karl of conspiring
and discriminating against her. She even attempted to file
ethical charges against Judge Karl before the Advisory Committee
of Judicial Conduct. All charges against Judge Karl were declined
and/or found meritless.
In March 2001, Plaintiff filed an ethics complaint against
Defendant Evan Laine, Esq. Defendant Carl D. Poplar, Esq.,
representing Mr. Laine, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety, which was granted. In April 2001, Plaintiff
filed an ethics grievance against Defendant Poplar, which was
also dismissed. In July 2001, Plaintiff sent letters to the New
Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services and Cherry Hill Police
Department alleging that the Laines had neglected their teenage children by leaving them home
In October 2001, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Evan
Laine, Jeffrey Gold, Gold & Laine, P.C., Michele Laine (Evan
Laine's wife), Christy Cicalese (an employee of Gold & Laine,
P.C.), Carl Poplar, and Poplar & Eastlack, the predecessor firm
to Carl D. Poplar, P.C. Ms. Perry later sought to add Defendant
Brandon Laine, son of Evan and Michele Laine, as a defendant. The
Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky dismissed the entire case, with
prejudice, on March 27, 2002. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of
the dismissal and a recusal of Judge Orlofsky, both of which
Judge Orlofsky dismissed. Ms. Perry appealed the case to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the
Third Circuit affirmed Judge Orlofsky on April 24, 2003.
In 2002 and 2003, Plaintiff filed complaints against the Laines
with the New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County, Case No.
CAM-L005235-02, and with the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer
County, Case No. MER-L-803-03. The Honorable John A. Fratto,
J.S.C. dismissed the Camden County complaint and the Honorable
Linda Feinberg, A.J.S.C. dismissed the Mercer County complaint.
Ms. Perry appealed Judge Fratto's decision and also filed another
complaint in the Superior Court, Camden County in February 2004.
However, the defendants were never served with this complaint.
Plaintiff also instituted charges against Evan and Michele Laine
in Cherry Hill Municipal Court in February 2004.
On August 4, 2004, Judge Fratto ordered that Ms. Perry "shall
be restrained and prohibited from filing and/or instituting
lawsuits, Complaints or other legal proceedings which are under
and/or subject to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of New
Jersey, whether they be Civil, Criminal, Quasi Criminal and/or Administrative, against . . .
Gold & Laine, P.C.; Jeffrey E. Gold, Esquire, Evan E. Laine,
Esquire; Carl D. Poplar, P.C.; Carl D. Poplar, Esquire, Christy
Cicalese; Michele [sic] Laine, Brandon Laine; and Jessica Laine"
without prior approval of a Judge of the Superior Court. Gold &
Laine v. Perry, Docket No. L-1402-04, Order For Restraints (Aug.
4, 2004). The only exception to Judge Fratto's Order is that Ms.
Perry "is permitted to file or institute lawsuits, Complaints,
legal proceedings, without prior approval, through an attorney
licensed to practice law in the State of New Jersey who has duly
filed an appearance on her behalf in each proceeding and said
attorney will sign each pleading and/or document regarding the
Complaints, lawsuits and other legal proceedings." Id.
On September 10, 2004, Judge Bernardin, a Municipal Court Judge
in Cherry Hill, wrote Ms. Perry a letter indicating that he will
"not be making a probable cause determination with regard to
[her] pending complaints" because Judge Fratto's August 4, 2004
Order precludes him from doing so. He also informed Ms. Perry
that "[p]ursuant to the Order [she] can make application to Judge
Fratto" and that "[he] will await direction from the Superior
Court." Letter from Honorable Daniel Bernardin to Victoria L.
Perry of Sept. 10, 2004.
On September 29, 2004, Judge Fratto issued an Amended Order
with the same terms as the August 4, 2004 Order but which also
designated the Honorable John McFeeley, III, P.J.M.C. as the
judge to review any Municipal Court complaint filed by Ms. Perry
against any of the aforementioned defendants. Gold & Laine v.
Perry, Docket No. L-1402-04, Amended Order (Sept. 29, 2004).
Plaintiff filed another complaint against Gold & Laine, P.C.,
Carl D. Poplar, P.A., Jeffrey E. Gold, Esq., Evan E. Laine, Esq., Carl D. Poplar, Esq., Christy
A. Cicalese, Michele Laine, Brandon Laine and Jessica Laine
(Collectively, "Laine defendants") in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on November 24, 2004. The
complaint, docketed as Case No. 04-CV-5842, was dismissed by the
Honorable Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. on December 10, 2004
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)
On December 10, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Judges Fratto and McFeeley, docketed as Civil Action No.
04-CV-6102. On December 23, 2004, Ms. Perry filed an amended
twelve-count complaint asserting claims against Judges Fratto and
McFeeley, and adding Judges Orlando and Bernardin as Defendants.
On December 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed another complaint against
the Laine defendants and one day later, on December 22, 2004,
filed a nine-count complaint against them, which was denominated
as an amended complaint. Both were assigned a new docket number:
Case No. 04C-V-6255.
On December 31, 2004, Plaintiff wrote me a letter asking me to
handle both this case, which was then pending before the
Honorable Robert B. Kugler, in addition to her Civil Action No.
04-6255,*fn1 which was already pending before me, on the
basis that I could be fair because I had "no prior connection to this file." Letter from Victoria
L. Perry to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson of Dec. 31, 2004
(emphasis in original). On January 6, 2005, this case was
reassigned from Judge Kugler to this Court for reasons unrelated
to Ms. Perry's request.
On January 14, 2005, Deputy Attorney General Joanne Stipick
wrote Plaintiff a letter stating that it was the Attorney
General's Office's "understanding that [Ms. Perry had] not yet
effected proper service upon" Judges Fratto, McFeely and Orlando,
and advised Plaintiff as to the proper person who is "authorized
to and will accept service on behalf of" Judges Fratto, McFeely
and Orlando, and that the person had agreed to ...