Lockley v. Barredo et al, No. 3:2018cv00068 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/22/18. (hnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lockley v. Barredo et al Doc. 3 CLERKS.OFFICJE U.S.DISX COURT A7'ROANOKE,VA FILED Aù'o 22 2218 IN THE IN TED STATES DISN CT COURT FOR TC W ESTERN DISN CT 0F VW GN A CHART.OTTESG LE DIW SION JUL .DtDLEY CLERK o /0 w CHRISTIAN R LOCKLEY CivilActionNo.3:18CV00068 Plainflff, M M OQ ANDUM OPN ON V. DAVD M .BARRED O,eta1., By:Hon.Glen E.Com ad SedorUnited StatesDiskictJudge Defqndsnts. ChristianF.Lockley,proceee g> K,commencedthlsaciionbysllngaform comple t v lnntJudge Dadd M .Barredo,the Charlottesvllle Juvenile and Domestlc Reladnns Dlsz ct , CourtCJ&DR Court''),andtheVlginiaDeps* entofSoclalServlces'DivlsionofChtldSupport Enforcement(Y CSE''). 'lheplainiffhasnotpaidtheSllng feebutV IIbeFvted leaveto proceed 1 formapaupeisforpurposesofiniialreview ofhlscomplaint. Forthefollowing rea ons,thecourtconcludesthntthecasem ustbedismlnsedforfailuretostateaclain pursnnntto 28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)@)(i1). àackerolmd Lockley alleges tIIM he appeaied in J&DR Courton August 15,2018. Atthat fme, Lockley wasRdelslnedforfailm e* apm aron Jlme14,2018,*andNeGêbsdtopayover$500toget bonded outofJai1.'' Compl.4,DocketNo.2. Lockley alleges11m1heattempted to explainto JudgeBm edo'%hatthestatecannotinterferew1t11theparendngofachlldj''butthejudgedenled allofhlsmofonsO dpreventedb1m 9om mesklng. K at5. AsaresultLockleyclnlmKthathe wasttnlawfullydetxlned''anddeprlvedofhlsTtfreçdom tospeaklndefenseofEhimqselq''andthnt Case 3:18-cv-00068-GEC Document 3 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 5 Pageid#: 13 Dockets.Justia.com JudgeBr edoevincedRnoconcem aboutthçchildlnthlqcase.'' Ma Lockley seekstorecover $700,000in mone> esfortheallegedviolaionsoflllsRFIrX Am endmentdght''andhis Kequalr1g11ts.'' K at2,6. Healso requeststhataRdiferentjudge''beappointed in thecase beforetheJ&DR Court. J. Z at6. Standard ofReview Under28U.S.C.j1915(e),whichgovernsiqformspauperisproceedings,thecourthasa msndatorydutytoscreeninitialGllngs. ErilineCo.S.A.v.Johnsom 440F.3d 648,656-57 (4th - y . Cir.2006). ThecoM mustdlsmlssacaseRatanytlme''ifthecourtdetennlnesthatthecomple t GTailstostateaclaim onwhichreEefmay. begranted-'' 28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). ThesM dardsforreviewingacomplaintfordsmissalunderj 1915(e)(2)@ )(ii)arethe same asthose whlch apply when a defendantmovesfordismissalunderFederalRule of Civll Procedure 12@)46). De'LbnG v.Angelone.330 F.3d 630,633 (4th Cir.2003). n us,in reviewingacomplalntundertbl 'Kstatute,theCOIA mustaccepta11well-pleaded fac111,11allegations astrue and view the comple tln the lightmostfavorable to the plaintiE Philipsv.Pil Cty. M em.Hosp.-572F.3d176,180(4thC1r.2009). TosurvivediKmlssalforfailuretostateaclaim, %w' . a complaint must contmm snm cient factnql allegafons $% raise a right to relief above the sw culativelevel''and 6% state aclAlm to rellefthatisplausible on itsface.'' BellAtt Cop .v. Twombly.550U.S.544,555,570(2007). Diseussion BecauseLockley chnm nteriznshisadion asoneforviolationsofhisfederalconstitutional rights,theqourtconsK esthecomplaintasbeingbroughtpursnnntto42U.S.C.j1983. Section 1983providesacauseofaction agnlnntany l erson''who,underœlorofsàtelam causesthe A deprivation ofanotherperson'srightsunderthe Constitution orlaws ofthe United SGtes. 42 Case 3:18-cv-00068-GEC Document 3 Filed 08/22/18 Page 2 of 5 Pageid#: 14 U.S.C.j1983, Forthefollowingreasons,thecourtconcludesthnttheplaintiœ scomple tfatls toskteaplausibleclnlm underj1983agslne anyofthennmeddefendnnts. 1. Claim saealnstJudzeBarredo Underexle ng precedent sudgesareabsolutely immune9om suitfora deprivauon of civllrightsbroughtunder42U.S.C.j 1983,*when such suitadses9om Judcialactionstaken jj ' witlu'ntheirjurisdlcion. Klngv.Myers.973F.2d354,356(4thCir.1992). Bystamte,judicial lmmunityextendsnotonlytoclslmsfordnmagesbutalsotorequestsforinjunctlvereEef See42 U.S.C.j1983(statingthatQV anyacGonbroughtagm-nntajudicialoo cerforanactoromiqsion takeninsuchom cer'sJudidalcapacity,injuncuverellefqhsllnotbegrantedM essadeclratory decreewasviolatedordeclaratory rellefwas= availablen);seealsoLepelleuerv.Trm 633F.' App'x 126,J27 (4th Cir.2016)(holdlng lhstthe plaintx sRclnlmq sœklng injunctlvereEef agnlnqtasitflngstatecourtjudgeforactlonstnkenlnhisjudiclalcapaclty ...werebarredbythe plainlanguageof42U.S.C.j1983'?). TheSupremeCourthasexplainedthatçla)judgewillnot bedeprived oflmmunitybecausetheacionhetookwasln r or,wasdonempllciously,orwasin . excessofMsauthodty;ratherhewillbesubjectto liabilityonlywhenhehqsadedin theclear absenceofalljurisdictlon.'' Slumpv.Sparkmnn.435U.S.349,356-57(1978)(internalquotatlon marksomittedl. Int%llcase,itisclear9om tqecomplainttbatLockley'sclslmmagnlnRtJudgeBarredoap basedon thejudge'sJudicialacts. M ofLockley'sspeciscfacfllslallegationsrelatetorulings made by Judge Barredo h a case pending before blm in the D &R Co< M oreover,the comple tisdevoid ofany allegationssuggese gthatJudgeBarredoRacted intheclearabsenceof alljurisdicuon.'' J. Z UnderVirginialaw,JudgeBarredoandoierjudgesoftllèJ&DR Court 3 Case 3:18-cv-00068-GEC Document 3 Filed 08/22/18 Page 3 of 5 Pageid#: 15 have jurlgdicdon to adjudicate matters involving the cnendy,visitauon,suppol conkol or disposldonofachild. Va.Codej16.1-241. EvenlfludgeBsrredosomehow erredinexemising hlsjudidalauthority,he is*111entitled to absolute lmmunity. See Klnm 973 F.M at357 (c phaslzlngthatE% eabsolutelmmunityextendedtoajudgeperformlngaludidalacionlsnotin # anyway dlmlnlshedevenifhisorhertexexiseofae ority lsfhwed bythecomml 'ssion ofF ave procédurale=o>''')(quoe g Smmp.435U.S.at359). Accordn ,gly,theclslmsagnlne Judge Bm edom ustbedismissed. H. Chim saeainstllm ,m &R Courtand theDCSX Lockley alsonamestlzem &R CourtandtheDCSE asdefendnnts. Itlswellsettledthata statecourtlsnotaY erson''subjed tosuitunderj1983. SeeHarrlsv.Ch -ampion -.51F.3d901, 906(101 Clr.1995)(observingthat:%b1qandothercircuitcourtqhaveheldthatastatecourtisnot atperson'under(jq1983*)(collecttngcases);seealsoOllviav.Boyer.163F.3d 599 (4thCir. 1998)(unpublishedtableopinion)(concludingthatEttlleDefendantcourtsystem isnotaperson'' forpurposesofû 1983). n esamelstrueforstateagencies. . S -K M n 'nnlngv.South Carollna Dep'tofHlahway& Pub.Trnnnp..914F.2d44,48(4thCir.1990)(dtlngW 111v.M ichlganDep't ofStatePo1lce.491U.S.58(1989:. RAstheVirglnlaDepnM entofSocialServices,Dlvlslonof ChlldSupportEnforcementiscedslnlyastnt,agency,itlsnotafperjon'subjecttosuittmder42 U.S.C.j1983.'' Te> oftheFnmllvParksv.CommonwealthDep'tofSoc.Servs.ChildSupport EnforcementServs..No.1:16-cv-00568,2016U.S.DistLEM S 109200,at*10(E.D.Va.Aug. 17,2016),afpi 672 F.App'x 281(4thClr.2016). Accordlngly,Lockley'sclnlmsagnlne the # . m &R CourtandtheDCSE aD alsosubjecttodlsmissal. 4 Case 3:18-cv-00068-GEC Document 3 Filed 08/22/18 Page 4 of 5 Pageid#: 16 Condusion Forthereasonsstated,thecpurtO IIg= ttheplaine smoGon forleavetomoceedk fomns paupeds. However,Mscomplaintwillbe dsmissed wlthoutpreludicepursllrmtto 28 U.s.c.j1915(e)(2)(B)Gi). The Clerk isdirededto send copiesoftbismemorandum opM on and theaccompanying ordertotheplaintiffs. DATED:Thls c dayùfAugust,2018. SeniorUnited StatesDiM ctJudge 5 Case 3:18-cv-00068-GEC Document 3 Filed 08/22/18 Page 5 of 5 Pageid#: 17
]]>
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.
