ATOO HEERA SAKHRANI v. JUDGE GERALD C. ESCALA

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5563-04T55563-04T5

ATOO HEERA SAKHRANI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JUDGE GERALD C. ESCALA,

in his personal and official

capacities,

Defendant-Respondent.

 

Submitted November 29, 2006 - Decided December 13, 2006

Before Judges Winkelstein and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, PAS-L-0630-05.

Atoo Heera Sakhrani, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alyson R. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a May 3, 2005 order dismissing his complaint with prejudice as to defendant, Judge Gerald C. Escala. Judge Escala previously presided over mortgage foreclosure proceedings against plaintiff and his wife. Plaintiff subsequently filed an affirmative complaint against his creditors, which Judge Escala ultimately dismissed, awarding counsel fees to the creditors. In response, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against Judge Escala, claiming civil rights violations. Judge Graziano, in an oral decision from the bench memorialized by a written order, dismissed plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that Judge Escala was immune from suit pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:3-2. On appeal from that determination, plaintiff raises the following arguments:

POINT I - JUDICIAL IMMUNITY IS A SPECIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE THAT VIOLATES THE NEW JERSEY AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS.

POINT II - DEFENDANT JUDGE ESCALA HAS SIDED WITH LARGE COMMERCIAL BANKS AGAINST NJ RESIDENT AS A "BONUS PARTNER" IN A PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES SCHEME IN CONCERT WITH BANKS AND LAWYERS.

POINT III - DEFENDANT IS USING HIS POSITION AS JUDGE TO OFFICIALLY OPPRESS AND ABUSE PLAINTIFF.

POINT IV - DEFENDANT JUDGE ESCALA HAS NO IMMUNITY FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.

 
We have reviewed in detail the entire record in light of plaintiff's contentions and the applicable law. We are satisfied that plaintiff's arguments are totally without merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-5563-04T5

December 13, 2006