Hawkins v. City of Richmond et al, No. 3:2016cv00216 - Document 44 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 09/16/2016. Copy mailed to Plaintiff on 9/16/2016.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hawkins v. City of Richmond et al Doc. 44 IP p L. •: - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HAWKINS, 1i.i Jr. CLERK, U.S DiSTRirr RICHMOf-i-: V/,'' Richmond Division RONALD E. 16 u SR. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. V. CITY OF RICHMOND, 3:16cv216 et al. , Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter TO DISMISS is before PURSUANT TO RULE the City of Richmond, TO RULE Police 12(b) (6) Court on 12(b)(6) Earl 33), the DEFENDANT'S (Docket the DEFENDANTS' (Docket No. Department, Mocello, the No. Woolbridge, Fernandez, COMPLAINT reasons TO RULE DISMISS (Docket stated below, 12(b)(6) of TO Richmond Woolbridge, TO will on 42), the (Docket PURSUANT AMENDED MOTION City No. and RULE DISMISS R.L. Jamison, (Docket No. MOTION filed by FOR the 15), the 12(b)(6) (Docket granted, Office, and 37), LEAVE DISMISS No. 37), filed the MOTION filed by PURSUANT and TO the Defendants Bishop, FOR the MOTION 33), by AMEND For DEFENDANTS' Martesha Michael TO Plaintiff. (Docket No. and Martesha Bishop, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO Magistrate be the No. by filed by the City of Richmond the AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS Gary filed MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT Defendants City of Richmond Magistrate Office, and 15), MOTION LEAVE and Gary TO AMEND Dockets.Justia.com COMPLAINT (Docket No. 42), filed by the Plaintiff, will be denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Ronald on August 29, when officers, two (''Jamison") , 2014, Plaintiff's (''Hawkins") not officer. one unnamed and one named (Compl. produce a 13-20, warrant (Compl. Earl unnamed Officer H or Docket inform girl Michael Fernandez partner Hawkins and would be showing "cleared" [about] incriminate the and also himself to girl gun, it (Compl. prove The of the of a could H 30-37). the that be he to didn't shoot a unnamed insinuated was have produce an determined charge, to 23-29). selling Hawkins, an 21-22). (Compl. and and to alleged declined about if nature the Jamison Hawkins is Hawkins that for 3). Hawkins (Compl. ("Mocello") room, questioned gun had not been fired. misled Jamison No. ("Fernandez"), transported Mocello interrogation allegedly drugs that 16-20). With the assistance of a warrant or state the charges against Hawkins. Mocello R.L. "a warrant downtown interrogation room in a police department. entered the alleges he was on the porch at his mother's house arrest." did Jamison's Sr. because there was charges against him. third Hawkins, approached and informed Hawkins that he would "have to go with them" officers E. that that this "after being compelled to anyone," in the process ''giving [away the] location aware of belonging to his brother." Although Hawkins fact, sought However, and Hawkins insufficient [Hawkins] officer of not obtained argues to had was that establish committed reasonable for facts Hawkins's cause offense," (Compl. would SI 81). to omitting information finding of probable cause. Magistrate Judge Martesha with Mocello to issue this warrant. After that the the firearm was SI charge against him was convicted felon. (Compl. SI 38). That yet day, October 8, controlled returned an however, (Compl. 2014, charging substance, and attempting to distribute a "no that deliberately, or to the alleges that acted in concert informed Hawkins SI 82) . Mocello of a firearm by a That charge was nolle prosequi'd was him (2) that concluded Hawkins possession unspecified Hawkins were that material ("Bishop") by the City of Richmond on October 9, had not was 83) . retrieved, in Hawkins further alleges which (Compl. Bishop was arrest. believe and have that Mocello obtained the warrant by knowingly, recklessly he and circumstances criminal a that Mocello had, probable competence probable cause existed." gun warrant, warrant ''the a (Compl. SI 37). shown a a of 2014 because a report. shown with (Compl. two (1) possession laboratory SISI 42-49). indictments dated distribution of a controlled substance. of firearm (Compl. a while SI 50). Hawkins alleges that the evidence supporting the indictments was taken from the August 29, November 5, 2014, charge" that had (Compl. SI 52). 2014 interrogation. Hawkins been was nolle indicted (Compl. ""on prosequi^d the on i 51) . same October On firearm 9, 2014. The evidence supporting that indictment was also allegedly taken from the August 29, 2014 interrogation. (Compl. II 52) . Following the October and November indictments, represented by Christopher Bradshaw 57). Hawkins (Compl. and Bradshaw SISI 57-60). to suppress, attorney frivolous. disagreed Particularly, while Bradshaw, Davis Powell, (Compl. SI1I C'Bradshaw") . on Hawkins was (Compl. litigation SISl 53- strategy. Hawkins wanted to file a motion after discussions with prosecuting believed 60-65, such 72-77). On a motion April 3, would 2015, be Judge Bradford Cavedo allowed Hawkins to change counsel, and appointed David 61-65). P. Cavedo Baugh as recused Hawkins's himself attorney. from Hawkins's transferred to Judge Beverly Snukals. A suppression (Compl. SISI 77-78) . hearing was Hawkins (Compl. case which Judge was then (Compl. Sli 66) . scheduled ''wanted SISI to in go Hawkins's forward case. with the hearing," but received ''a message through his attorney David P. Baugh from Plaintiff (Compl. not SISI a to Richmond accept 79). the ''Hawkins Police plea felt Office[r] deal" which Fernandez was intimidated and being felt informing offered. that he was receiving Due Process and had no other choice but to take a [p]lea deal." distribution (Compl. of 80). cocaine in Hawkins violation of was and sentenced to ten years of incarceration, three months suspended for time served. Hawkins for a (Docket No. filed this period 35-1, action against the City of Richmond Police Department (''the police officers official Mocello, capacities ("the pro § of 18.2-248(c) with nine years and ten years, with credit 1). se and ("the City"); Police Richmond's Magistrate Office of Ex. Code Va. convicted in forma pauperis the City of Richmond Department") ; the City (''the Magistrate Office"); Fernandez, and individual Jamison officers"); of Richmond in and their Richmond Magistrate Judge Martesha Bishop and Chief Magistrate Judge Gary Woolbridge ("the Magistrate Judges"), also capacities. Plaintiff presents six claims: in (1) their Count One alleges that Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause; of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; malicious prosecution; false imprisonment; Process, alleges in and right Equal Amendment. of Count the Four Fifth (6) alleges Amendment; Hawkins seeks in false arrest and denial (5) alleges of Count Due Five Sixth violation of plaintiff's violation declaratory unspecified equitable relief, Two in violation of the Count Six alleges a Protection, in violation Count Count Three alleges of effective counsel, Amendment; to (4) violation denial (3) (2) official and of the Fourteenth injunctive and compensatory damages. relief, Between June filed motions 2016, to to 8, 2016 dismiss. and June 24, (Docket Nos. 2016, 15, 33, all 37). Defendants On June 30, Hawkins filed a motion for an extension of time to respond these motions. No. 40). On July 1, Hawkins's granted (Docket request and ordered that Hawkins motions by responses Rather to than the file a reply, amend his Complaint. July 26, Hawkins (Docket No. 2016. filed 42). a 2016, the submit (Docket motion Court No. for his 41) . leave to Defendants have not filed responses to Hawkins's motion for leave to amend. LEGAL In all dismiss civil under sufficiency Corp., to Fed. of a dismiss (4th 2009) . Cir. pleader's can accept Old 338 v. be P. otherwise, 12(b) (6) v. a motion challenges the Alternative favor a of court the must Inc., 591 However, court 'Mraw ''will while what drawn facts." Charles Practice and Procedure Co., L.L.C., the happened" therefrom," and the encompassing the A. § legal Resources plaintiff." Consumeraffairs.com, of to 2006). When deciding a motion 12(b)(6), in reasonably Sec. or Jordan conclusory allegations Dominion se {4th Cir. Rule description pleaded Federal Civ. inferences Ltd. pro complaint. under Chevrolet, the R. 458 F.3d 332, reasonable that cases, STANDARD Wright 1357 No. (3d & F.3d ed.l998); 3:13CV820, 2014 250, 253 the conclusions court Arthur Nemet accept ""any legal all ""need effects R. not of Miller, Chamblee v. WL 1415095, *4 a (E.D. Va. legal The court is not required to accept as true conclusion 556 U.S. As 2014). at a unsupported by factual threshold matter, e.g., omitted); Erickson v, Gordon v. Nevertheless, vision for the Court Pardus, Leeke, recognizes for WL 551 U.S. 574 89, F.2d 1147, (2007) 1151 (citations {4th Cir. 1978). recognize Rule 8's allow for the preparation of a basic at *2 F.R.D. of (E.D. Va. 26, (S.D.N.Y. construction ''does not mean that Sewraz v. Guice, (quoting 1972)). The 2008 Prezzi v. requirement of the court can ignore a in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a 2009 WL 2191981, at *2 of Soc. Servs., Fed. R. federal (D.S.C. July 16, 901 F.2d 387 Civ. pleading district P. only with when justice so requires." when the court." 2009) (4th Cir. 15(a) (2) consent or the court's leave. only and provide a means 2008) liberal its 151 Aug. 57 clear failure 149, sham claims.'" Berzak, denied 94 narrow the issues to be litigated, 3926443, amend Hawkins's ^a system of simplified pleadings that give notice of quick dispositions Dept. that liberal construction. ''[e]ven pro se plaintiffs must the general claim asserted, defense, Iqbal, 678-79. pro se status entitles his pleadings to a See, allegations. the provides Skelton v. EPA, (citing Weller v. 1990)). that opposing ''a party party's may written The court should freely give leave "Leave to amend a pleading should be amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing moving party, there party, or has the been Dep't of Justice, *1 Aug. Cir. 404, 426 (4th 178, 182 (1962) . appear the to be motions 3, Cir. at to 2016) 2006)); At this issue. is given the necessary the futile." at Harvey, 438 F.3d Davis, 371 U.S. v. nor bad issues to of 2016 WL 4120669, v. Foman part been neither prejudice However, it Laber also the have 16-6085, (quoting see on would No. time, dismiss, amendment would be faith amendment Djenasevic v. (4th bad faith presented by assess whether any futile. ANALYSIS OF LAW The claims asserted by Hawkins in the Complaint are clearly barred by judicial immunity, municipal liability under Humphrey, 512 U.S. must be futile, granted. 477, For § 487 the the 1983, (1994). same limitations and the Thus, reasons, on doctrine vicarious of Heck v. the motions to dismiss any amendment would be necessitating denial of the motion for leave to file an amended complaint. A. Claims Against Magistrate Judges' Judicial Immunity the Magistrate Judges and the Office Are Clearly Barred by It is beyond dispute that judicial officers may not be held liable for within 543 an award of money damages their (1984); jurisdiction. Pressly v. See so long as Pulliam v. Gregory^ 8 831 F.2d Allen^ 514, they have acted 466 517 U.S. 522, (4th Cir. 1987) (^'As absolute judicial immunity officers, for capacity."); Murphy v. *3 Apr. (E.D. There Va. is also officers, Va. no acts Ross, 15, magistrates 2015) performed No. are in 3:14CV870, entitled their to judicial 2015 WL 1787351, at (collecting circuit court opinions). question Code § 19.2-119 that magistrates are (''Vudicial officer' or that a state magistrate has authority and jurisdiction under to issue search warrants, Va. the unless indicated, law serving means, otherwise state any magistrate judicial jurisdiction''), Code magistrate shall have the following powers ... § To 19.2-45 (''A issue search warrants in accord with the provisions of §§ 19.2-52 to 19.2-60 of the Code[.]"). Judicial immunity "is vitiated only when the judicial officer acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." Pressly^ 831 F.2d at 517 (citing Stump v. The fact judicial officer has acted erroneously does not mean that a that Griffin the v. (W.D.N.C. judge judicial Thornburg^ June 19, will not be Sparkman^ 435 U.S. officer has No. 2008). acted without 1:08CV222, 2008 WL 349 (1978)). jurisdiction. 2512901, at The Supreme Court explained that deprived of immunity took was in error,, was done maliciously, because the *4 ''[a] action he or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in 'clear 435 U.S. at the 356-5. absence of all jurisdiction.'" Stump^ "A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his flawed 359. judicial by the Instead, ''dealt with Because acts even commission of the relevant the judge Magistrate his grave his - she acted of procedural judicial Bishop authority errors." within capacity." performed performed by a magistrate in her warrant exercise Id. is at inquiry relates to whether the party in Judge if a Id. function judicial capacity - his at jurisdiction 362. normally issuing a regardless of whether any errors attended the exercise of this jurisdiction. With judicial immunity serving as such a broad shield for Magistrate Judge Bishop's actions in issuing the arrest warrant, there is no plausible construction of the Complaint under which relief state it can a is be granted. claim against equally Magistrate impossible her alleged supervisor. employer. 37), Therefore, filed Martesha Additionally, by for claims against and Judge Hawkins Bishop to state Hawkins for a her cannot actions, claim against Chief Magistrate Judge Woolridge, the AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants Bishop, because City of Richmond Gary Woolbridge, will (Docket Magistrate be or her Office, granted, the City of Richmond Magistrate Office, No. and all Martesha Bishop, and Gary Woolbridge, will be dismissed. There is no amendment that Hawkins might make that could state a viable claim for relief against Magistrate Judge Bishop. Leave to amend the would accordingly be Complaint futile. against Magistrate Therefore, 10 Hawkins's Judge Bishop motion for leave to amend will be denied as it pertains to Magistrate Judge Bishop, Chief Richmond Magistrate Magistrate's Judge Office Woolrich, or any and the reasonably City of equivalent entity.^ B. Claims Against the City of Richmond and the City of Richmond Police Department are Clearly Barred by Limitations on Vicarious Liability of Municipalities Hawkins's City is predicated respondeat Monell V. (1978) . where claim superior upon a that the Mitchell, or custom F. Supp. 2d a U.S.C. of § 1983 vicarious legally municipal or causes a statutory 615, 629 658, deprivation Va. 694 only undertaken an of the Brown rights." (E.D. or theory. 436 U.S. has the liability liability arises municipality/ which against cognizable Of City of N.Y.^ qua constitutional 327 not ''under Monell^ policy 42 theory Serv. municipality, plaintiff's to is Dep't of Soc. However, official pursuant v. 2004). Thus, in order to state a claim against the City, Hawkins must set forth a finding sufficient City had a deprivation violated; factual basis policy or of and the (2) to support custom of deliberate constitutional this a policy or right that: indifference alleged custom caused, to or (1) the to the have been contributed ^ Defendants state that "there is no such legal entity entitled ^City of Richmond Magistrate's Office," and that magistrates are instead supervised by the Office of the Executive Secretary. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mtn. to Dismiss, Docket No. 25, 11). Because Hawkins cannot state a claim against Magistrate Judge Bishop's employer, whoever that employer is, the Court will not discuss the matter further. 11 to cause, F. Supp. Tuttle^ the 67, complained of 75 471 (E.D. U.S. Independence^ Va. 808, 445 U.S. injury. 1995) 823 Westmoreland Brown, 883 (citing City of Oklahoma City v. (1985)); 622, v. see also Owen v. City of (1980). Hawkins has not pled the existence of any policy that would entitle him Therefore, to pursue Hawkins's a claim claims based against on the municipal City must liability. be dismissed as legally insufficient. Moreover, the plausible basis would viable be dismiss will be for Complaint makes amendment under that Monell. clear would Thus, that state the granted and the motion for there a City's leave is claim motions no that to to amend will be denied. The fail claims under the against same the analysis City of because Richmond the Police Police Department Department for the purposes of a suit against it, a part of the City. '"In Virginia, an operating division of a governmental entity cannot be sued unless the legislature has vested the operating division with the capacity to be sued." Muniz v. Fairfax Pep't. No. 1:05CV466 (JCC), at V. County Police 2005 WL 1838326, *2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2005) (citing Davis City of Portsmouth^ 579 F.Supp. 1205, 1210 (E.D. (4th Cir. Va. 1983), 1984)). aff'd, The 742 F.2d [Richmond 1448 Police Department] has not been vested with such a capacity. Dance v. City of Richmond Police Dep't. No. 3:09CV423 (HEH), 2009 WL 2877152, at *4 (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2009). The Court will therefore treat all claims against the 12 is, City Burnley (E.D. v. and Norwood, Va. Aug. Police RPD No. 4, dismissal against the the as against 3:10CV264-HEH, 2010). The the City 2010 only. WL 3063779, principles which at would *5 make the City of Richmond inevitable also apply to Department, and that inevitability renders amendment against the Police Department futile. For DISMISS the foregoing PURSUANT Defendants City R.L. Jamison, that it TO of RULE reasons, the 12(b)(6) Richmond seeks a dismissal (Docket Police and Michael Mocello, DEFENDANTS' No. Department, MOTION 33), Earl filed TO by Fernandez, will be granted to the extent against the City of Richmond Police Department,^ and all claims against the City of Richmond Police Department will be dismissed with prejudice. C. V. Finally, Claims Against All Defendants are Barred by Heck Humphrey to the extent that Hawkins intended to assert a claim for a defect in his legal proceedings that would implicate the validity of his confinement, those claims are barred as to all Defendants^ by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 487. ^ Claims against the individual officers will be assessed and dismissed in the following section. ^ The Court notes that claims against the individual officers would face the additional hurdle of overcoming qualified immunity. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); see also Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009); Henry v. Purnell, 501 F.3d 374, 376-78 (4th Cir.2007); Danjczek v. Spencer, 156 F. Supp. 3d 739, 744 (E.D. Va. 2016). 13 [I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized determination, federal or court's corpus, damages to called issuance make into of a such question writ of by a habeas 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Heck, any 512 U.S. form of at 486-87. relief The Supreme Court that implicates the reads Heck to cover constitutionality of criminal procedures related to a plaintiff's criminal case. [A] state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) — no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) that the — ^ success in action would necessarily demonstrate invalidity of confinement or its duration. Wilkinson Griffin 2015); v. v. Dotson, Bait. Via v. 544 Police Fahey, No. U.S. 74, Dep't, CIV.A. 81-82 804 (2005); F.3d 3:07CV778, 14 692, see 697 also, (4th 2009 WL 223113, e.g.. Cir. at *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. termination at 486-87; a 29, encompasses: requirement malicious e.g.. ineffective Driscoll, The prosecution. of favorable Heck, 512 No. Miller, assistance CIV.A. 475 of 98-1449-AM, Va. Apr. 18, 2002), aff'd, F.3d at 627-28 counsel, 2002 WL e.g., 31962249, 46 F. App'x 724 (4th Cir. Blaney at *2 admission, Hawkins pled guilty. v. (E.D. (4th Cir. 2002). Hawkins's proceedings were not favorably terminated. own U.S. false imprisonment and false imprisonment pursuant to deficient warrant, 2007); 2009). (Compl. ^ By his 80).This means that Hawkins cannot state a claim for any form of relief against any Defendants, and all such claims must be dismissed. Moreover, require dismissal amendment P. there is is no under possible 28 amendment U.S.C. § that would 1915(e) (2) (i) . futile and accordingly improper under Fed. not Thus, R. Civ. 15(a)(2). For the DISMISS PURSUANT DEFENDANTS' No. Earl 33) , RULE TO DISMISS the 12(b)(6) DEFENDANT'S (Docket PURSUANT TO RULE MOTION No. 15), 12(b)(6) TO the (Docket filed by Defendants City of Richmond Police Department, Fernandez, of reasons, TO MOTION AMENDED MOTION City foregoing R.L. TO Richmond ^ Hawkins appears Jamison, DISMISS (Docket Magistrate to presently incarcerated. be and E.g., No. Office, under a Michael 37), filed Martesha suspended Docket No. 15 Mocello, 35, by and Defendants Bishop, sentence, Ex. 1. the and but Gary not Woolbridge, will be granted, and all claims against all Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice. CONCLUSION For the DISMISS PURSUANT DEFENDANTS' No. reasons 33), MOTION and the stated above, TO RULE TO DISMISS AMENDED the 12(b)(6) (Docket PURSUANT MOTION TO DEFENDANT'S TO RULE DISMISS MOTION No. 15), 12(b)(6) (Docket TO the (Docket No. 37), filed by Defendants City of Richmond Magistrate Office, Martesha Bishop, all and Gary Woolbridge, will be granted. All claims against Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice. LEAVE TO Plaintiff, IT IS AMEND COMPLAINT (Docket No. 42), The MOTION FOR filed the by will be denied. SO ORDERED Robert E. /s/ Payne mi- Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: September ^ , 2016 16
]]>
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.
