Lan Tu Trinh v. David Fineman

Petitioner filed a pro se § 1983 action in the district court against a receiver who had been appointed in a state court case in which Petitioner was a party. The district court granted the receiver's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, finding that the receiver was entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity. In affirming the district court's dismissal order, the Third Circuit relied on a transcript of a state court hearing that the district court never considered because the transcript was never part of the district court record. In addition, the Third Circuit relied on a state court opinion that was not attached as an exhibit to Petitioner's complaint, and was instead attached as an exhibit to the receiver's motion to dismiss. Based on these two documents from the state-court proceedings, the Third Circuit concluded that the receiver was acting at the court's behest at all relevant times, and that as a result, the receiver was entitled to the same absolute immunity afforded to judges.

1. Did the district court err by granting the receiver's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds under Rule 12(b)(6)?

2. Did the Third Circuit err by basing its affirmance on documents that were not attached to Petitioner's complaint?

3. Was the receiver entitled to the same absolute immunity afforded to judges?