context: The District Court properly applied the doctrine of judicial immunity to bar the claims against the judges, and properly rejected as time-barred the remaining claims. Our concerns regarding sua sponte dismissals are not at issue here, as Scott filed an amended complaint before the Magistrate Judge issued his report and any further attempt to amend would have been futile.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 363 F.3d 229, 235-36
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal, a district court must first permit the plaintiff to file a curative amendment unless the dismissal is justified by bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility
citation_a.sentence: See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235-36 (3d Cir.2004) (stating that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal, a district court must first permit the plaintiff to file a curative amendment unless the dismissal is justified by bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility); see also Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir.2006) (stating that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 based on an affirmative defense where the defense is obvious from the complaint and no development of the factual record is required).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 435 F.3d 1252, 1258
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint under 28 U.S.C. SS 1915 based on an affirmative defense where the defense is obvious from the complaint and no development of the factual record is required
citation_b.sentence: See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235-36 (3d Cir.2004) (stating that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal, a district court must first permit the plaintiff to file a curative amendment unless the dismissal is justified by bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility); see also Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir.2006) (stating that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 based on an affirmative defense where the defense is obvious from the complaint and no development of the factual record is required).