Machie v. Green et al, No. 8:2015cv03360 - Document 8 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/11/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Case Information Sheet)(c/m 12/11/2015 aos, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Machie v. Green et al Doc. 8 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DISTRICT OF HARYLAND Southern Di.-isioll 2015 DEC II A JO: ltU CLERX'S OFFICE '\T GREEH3ELT EDMOND K. MACIIIE, * Plaintiff, Case No.: G.JH-15-336lJ * v. * .JUDGE LEO E. GREEN, .JR.,et aI., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION A brief history of Plaintiff Edmond Maehie's complaint raising counts of battery and intentional Washington Georgc's Metropolitan Area Transit Authority County. Maryland. WMA TAbus in Arlington Thc Complaint eivillilings inllietion entered his appearance followed and the parties resolved in the Circuit Court Illr Prince allcged an April 20. 2012 fare dispute on a removed the case here. See ,\{ilchie \'. (D. Md.). In August 01'2014. new counsel. on behalf of Maehie. A subsequent Order was entered on October 17.2014. Reliefin thllll without prejudice. conference WI'vlATA to regarding the "appropriateness" Rosenberg ,\{ilchie \'. IVMA7>1. seeking federal court intervention. 2015. the Motion was dismissed Eric and the case was dismissed. retainer fee (40% of the recovery amount or $52.000.00). lor Appropriate settlement the case lor the payment of $130.000.00 A dispute ensued between Maehie and Rosenberg Rosenberg's distress against the County. Virginia. wherein the bus operator violently threw Maehie IVMATA. Civil Action No. PJM-14-107 Maehie. A Settlement of emotional ("WMATA") out of the front of the bus causing him injury. WMi\TA Rosenberg. is in order. Maehie liled a civil to allow Rosenberg of Ii led a Motion On February 27. and Maehie to pursue Dockets.Justia.com their respective causes of action in the appropriate state court. On March 12.2015. Rosenberg tiled a contract suit against Machie in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. See Rosenherg I'. Ml/chie. Case No, CAI.-I 5-045 I0 (copy of docket attached), The docket shows that Rosenberg was represented by Phillip R. Zuber and that Judge Leo Green presided over the matter. Status confercnces and motions hcarings occurred in the state court case and on October 20. 2015. Judge Green directed that judgment be entered in favor of Rosenberg and against Maeie in the amount of $52.000,00, WMA TAwas to pay into the registry of the Circuit C011l1the sum 01'$130.000.00 as liJll settlement oUvll/chie \'. II'MATA, Machie's notice of appeal is pending. The Court now turns to the instant case, On or about October 26. 2015. the United States District Coul1 lor the District of Columbia received lor tiling Maehie's 28U.S.C. ~ 1332 diversity Complaint. In effect. Machie. reiterates the elements of his fee dispute with Attorney Rosenberg and challenges the aforementioned state court proceedings. I-Ieseeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount 01'$10,000.000 and raises counts of"blaekmail. harassment. eontempt of court. fraud and/or intend to fraud. contlict of interest. abuse of authority." ECF No. I. The case was transferred to this Court that same date. Jd. at ECF Nos, 5 & 6. Machie has tiled a Motion for Lcave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF NO.2. Although the Court has strong questions regarding his indigene)' status in light of the scttlement in his previously tiled federal and state court cases. the Court shall provisionally grant Maehie \cave to proceed without prepayment of the tiling Ice, His Complaint. however. shall be summarily dismissed. A Coun may consider subject matter jurisdiction as part of its initial review of the Complaint. See Lovern 1'. F;,hrard,'. 190 F.3d 648. 654 (4th Cir. 1999) ("Determining the 2 question of subject maller jurisdiction procedure.'lin at the outset of the litigation is otien the most erticient general. if subject matter jurisdiction See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("'Ifthe court determines jurisdiction. is lacking. the action must be dismissed. at any time that it lacks subjcct-maller the court must dismiss the action."'). A federal court must determine whether it has subject maller jurisdiction has an obligation to consider over a casc pending bcfore it. If neccssary. its subject matter jurisdiction F.3d 87. 89 (2d Cir. 2006). "[Q]ucstions during the proceedings with certainty of subject-maller and may (or. more precisely. the Court sila spol1le . .'-,eeJoseph \'. Leal'ill. 465 jurisdiction may be raiscd at any point must) be raised sila "l'ol1le by the court."' Brick\1'ood COI1lI'{lClors. Inc. \'. Da/{lnel Eng "g. Inc .. 369 F.3d 385. 390 (4th Cir. 2(04). The Court has carefully not apparent. of attorneys. reviewed Maehie's Complaint and tinds that a federal claim is At best. his cause of action alleges nothing more than tortious conduct on the part a judge. and judicial staff. Pursuant to 28 when the parties are of diverse citizenship tim)ly established U.s.c. * 1332. diversity jurisdiction and the amount in controversy exists exceeds 575.000. It is a general rule of the federal courts that a plaintiff's diversity claim is the measure of the amount in controversy and determines the question of jurisdiction. ,',ce Mcf)ollald \'. Pal/on. 240 F.2d 424. 425-26 (4th Cir. 1957). The broad sweep of the rule is subject to the qualitication that a plaintilrs the amount in dispute. claim must be madc in good taith -- there must be no pretense to !d. In addition. while good faith is a salient factor. it alone docs not control; if it appears to a legal certainty amount. the case will be dismissed that the plainti ITcannot recover the jurisdictional for want of jurisdiction. See SI. Pall/ Mercw)' \'. Red. Cab Co .. 303 U.S. 283. 289 (1938); see also Shallag/wlIl'. Illdellll1ily Co, Cahill. 58 F.3d 106 (4th Cir. 1995). It is undisputed here that the parties are diverse. 3 Machie has failed to show. however. that ..the matter in controversy exceeds $75.000. cxclusivc of interest and costs'" The causc of action arises out of a state court action related to the disputed $52.000.00. Machie seeks approximately damagcs against each Defendant. prerequisite in both compensatory 58 F.3d at 112. Punitive damages damages). requirement to satisfy the amount in controversy tinds that Machie's Complaint The Complaint based on the Complaint issues with the actions of Defendants subject to review here. as thc Court is also without jurisdiction This action is based upon the history of a concluded issuc with the judicial over thc casc'" whether docs not currently state filils to allege facts specific required by 28 U.S.c. ~ 1332 and it is a "legal certainty" Machie cannot recover punitive damages Machie's that an amount less than have long been included in determining claims for which punitive damages can be awarded. allegations. and punitivc has been met. See 14B Wright & Miller ~ 3702 at 89 The Court. however. Further. Machie's involving "Unless thc claim for an amount over the jurisdictional amount is all that is at issuc. the district coun has jurisdiction the amount in controversy (punitive and scttlement is made in bad faith. or unless it is plain li'om the complaint the jurisdictional Shanaghan. $10.000.000.00 fee agrecment determinations as it currently exists. thai I in his state court case arc not to review the gravamen state court proceeding entered therein. The Rooker-Feldman of the and doctrine is based upon the holdings of the Supreme Court in Rooker \'. Fidelity 7i'lls/ Co.. 263 U.S. 413 [Under applicable i\laryland law. a plaimilTlllust prove that a defendant had actual malice in order to obtain punitive damages in a tort aetion. See View Point Sr".. U.C r. Athena !fell/Iii. /nc .. 9 F. Supp. 3d 588,616.17 (D. Md. 2014). Maryland eourts have defincd '''aelUalmaliee' as 'conduct of the defendant characterized by evilmotivc. intent to injure. ill will. or fraud.... Darcar,\' Al%r", (d'Si!n.:r ,,'pring. Inc. \', BorzYIIl. 379 Md. 249. 264. 841 A.2d 828. 837 (2004) (quoting O,,'ens-I/Iinois, Inc. r. Zenohia. 325 Md. 420.460.601 A.2d 633. 652 (1992). Thus. "'negligence alone. no mailer how gross. wamoll. or outrageous. will not satisfy [the] standard [oraclualmaliccJ .... BorzYIIl. 379 Md. at 264. 841 A.2d at 837 (alteration in original) (quoting Owens-I/Iinoi". /nc .. 325 Md. at 463. 601 A.2d at 654). Actual malice must be established by clear and convincing evidence. lJorzYIIl. 379 Md. at 264. 841 A.2d at 837: see Le Marc's Mglll/. Corp. r. Valentin. 349 Md. 645. 652. 709 A.2d 1222. 1226 (1998). 4 (1923) and Dislricl oj"ColulIlhia COUrIo/Appmls I', Feldlllall, 460 U,S. 462 (1983). The doctrine operates to deprive a district court of subject matter jurisdiction in a narrow set of circumstances, specifically in "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries causcd by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxoll Mohil Corp. I', Saudi Basic Illdus. Corp .. 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). In DOl'll11i'. Va. Dep'l oj'7i'al1.lp.. 434 F,3d 712, 713 (4th Cir. 2006), the I Fourth Circuit held that "the Rooker-Feldlllall doctrine applies only when the loser in state court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by the state court's decision itself." "Exxoll requires us to examine whether the state-court loser who liles suit in federal district court seeks redress for an injury caused by the state-court decision itself Ifhe is not challenging the state-court decision, the Rooker-Feldlllall doctrine docs not apply." Iii. at 718, This action is based upon state court proccedings and Machie's disputc with thosc judicial determinations and he may not proceed in this federal district court based upon his dissatislaction with the state court lindings, The action is therefore dismissed on that basis as welL Finally, to the extent that Machie is Icveling general damage claims of bias against Judge Green and his judicial assistant. he is barred from tiling the Complaint. It is well-established that judges, in exercising the authority vested in them, arc absolutely immune ti'om civil lawsuits for money damages. See Mireles 1'. Waco, 502 U,S, 9, 9-10 (1991) (per curiam) ("A long line of this Court's precedents acknowledges that. generally, a judge is immune li'OI11 suit for money a damages."); Chul'. Gri[filh, 771 r.2d 79, 81 (4th CiT. 1985); see also .lfalldel I'. O'llara, 320 Md. 103, 107, 576 S.2d 766, 768 (1990) ('"Absolute 'immunity protects ... judges ... so long as their acts are 'judicial' .. , in nature and within the very general scope of their jurisdiction. '''). 5 Judicial immunity applies to judicial action takcn in error. done maliciously. or in excess of authority. See Slump v. Sparkman. 435 U.S. 349. 355-56 (1978). Essentially. a judge is entitled to absolute immunity if the judge acted in his judicial capacity and had jurisdiction over the subject matter. See King v. ,'vIyers. 973 F.2d 354. 356-57 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly. a plaintiff alleging a claim for money damages against ajudge can overcome absolute judicial immunity only by showing (1) the judge' s actions were taken outside of the judge's judicial capacity or (2) the judge acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction. Id. Machie cannot make such a showing. For the reasons set out herein. the Complaint shall be summarily dismissed by separate Order. Dated: December k4 I I .2015 GEORGEf"HAZEL United States District Judge 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
