Patterson v. Hawse et al, No. 1:2015cv00477 - Document 27 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: For all these reasons, Lawhorn is not entitled to either Eleventh Amendment or qualified immunity. Accordingly, an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss as to Lawhorn will issue with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 7/6/15. (yguy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Patterson v. Hawse et al Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division LESLIE PATTERSON, Plaintiff, l:15-cv-477 (LMB/JFA) V. JOHN HAWSE and DENISE LAWHORN, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 30,2015, after the parties arguedthe Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"), themotion was granted in part, with all claims against John Hawse dismissed. The remaining issueas to whether DeniseLawhom was immune from suit was taken under advisement. Order ofJune 30,2015 [Dkt. No. 26]. Plaintiff Leslie Patterson ("Patterson"), the pastor of FirstBaptist Church of Sterling (the "Church"), brought thisaction for damages against two agents of the Virginia Department of Taxation, DeniseLawhom ("Lawhom") and John Hawse ("Hawse"), solely in their individual capacities, raising claims under state law of malicious prosecution and under42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 for alleged violations of his FourthAmendment "right not [to] be arrested or subjected to criminal prosecution without probable cause." E.g.. Am. Compl. H52. The Amended Complaint contains the following allegations in support of these claims. Patterson and his wife were first arrested on October 27,2011, based on felony warrants charging embezzlement, filing false personal tax returns, and receiving money under false pretenses. The embezzlement charges were dismissed for lack of evidence on Febmary 27, 2012. Id H26. The Commonwealth subsequently dropped all remaining charges against Patterson on June 19, 2012, after neither his original personal tax retums nor the amended Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
