Gerald et al v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 3:2019cv00022 - Document 4 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 4/24/19. (jcj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cLEe s OFFICE U.S. DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED AF2 2j 2219 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT OF V IRG IN IA CHARLOU ESVILLE DIVISION PATRICIA GEM LD and TARSHA GERALD , ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) COMMONWEALTH 0FVIRGINIA,etal.,) ) Defendants. ) JU A ' U - ,CLERK BY: . CLER CivilAction N o.3:19CV 00022 M EM O RA NDIJM OPINIO N By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudge PatriciaGerald(sspatricia'')andherdaughter,TarshaGerald(ççTarsha''),proceedingpro. K, com m enced this action by Gling a form com plaintagainstthe Com m onw ea1th ofV irginia;two oftscers with the Albem arle County Police Departm ent,R.Scopellitiand S.M iller;Albem arle County Deputy Com m onwealth's A ttorney Darby Low e;and A lbem arle County Circuit Court Judge CherylH iggins. The plaintiffs have notpaid the Gling fee butw illbe granted leave to proceed Lq forma pauperisforpurposesofini tialreview oftheircomplaint. Forthefollowing . reasons,thecourtconcludesthatthecase m ustbedism issed forfailureto state aclaim ,pursuantto 28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Backeround The follow ing facts are taken from the complaint and public records of state court proceedingsrelatedtothe'case. SeePhilipsv.PittCty.Mem.Hosp.,572F.3d176,180(4thCir. Gerald et al v. Commonwealth of Virginia Doc. 4 2009)(noting thatcourtsççmayproperlytakejudicialnoticeofmattersofpublicrecord''when reviewingacomplaipt). On M ay 26, 2013, Patricia and Tarsha were involved in a two-vehicle accident in l Albem arle County. Theplaintiffs'vehicle rear-ended a vehicle operated by PaulW elch. Tarsha Dockets.Justia.com claim ed to own the plaintiffs' vehicle and gave W elch her information. The plaintiffs then returned to theirvehicleand drove aw ay. OfflcerScopellitisubsequently responded to the scene ofthe accidentand spoketo W elch. Scopellitirelayed the information provided by W elch to a dispatcher. Officer M iller heard the dispatch and located the plaintiffs'vehicle in the parking 1otof an apartm entcom plex. M iller spoke to the plaintiffs and checked the status oftheirdrivers'licenses. M iller then relayed the inform ation he obtained to Scopelliti. Scopellitiobtained w arrants of arrest againstPatricia and Tarsha for operating a motor vehiclewhileon a suspended license,third orsubsequentoffense,in violation ofVirginia Code j 46.2-301. Patriciaand Tarsha weretried togetherby theAlbemarle County GeneralDistrict CourtonOctober8,2013. TheCommonwealth'sevidenceindicatedthatPatriciawasdrivingthe plaintiffs'vehicle atthe time ofthe accidentand thatTarsha drove the vehicle away from the scene. ln defense ofthe charges,Patricia :nd Tarsha both denied driving when they testiGed on direct' exam ination. The gelieraldistrictcourtdiscredited theirtestim ony and found them guilty ofthe offensesw ith w hich they were charged. Patricia and Tarsha appealed theirconvictionsto the A lbem arle County Circuit Court. At som e point thereafter, they w ere both indicted for perjurybasedoptheirtestimopybeforethegeneraldistrictcourt. PatriciaandTarshaweretriedtogetherby thecircuitcourtonthechargesofperjury and drivingw hile on a suspended license. OnN ovem ber19,2015,the oircuitcourtfound Patriciaand Tarshaguilty ofbojh charges. Theirconvictionswereafûrmedbythe SupremeCourtofVirginia onM ay31,2018. SeeGeraldv.Commonwealth.813S.E.2d722(Va.2018). ' Patriciaand TarshaGled aform com plaintin the Eastern D istrictofVirginia on January 18, . 20l9. On April15,2019,ajudgein thatdistricttransferredthecasetotheW esternDistrictof V irginia aqerconcluding thatvenue w 4sim properthere. 2 In the fonn com plaint, th8 plaintiffs allege that Scopelliti and M illçr provided false testim ony attrial,and thatLow e,who prosecuted the cases for the Com m onw ealth,and Judge Higgins,thepresidingcircuitcourtjudge,knew orshouldhavelcnownthattheoffcers'testimony wasfalse. Theplaintiffsindicatethatthey arenow suing?orviolationsoftheirrightsunderthe Sixth and Fourteenth A m endm ents to the U nited States Constitution. They seek to recover damagésintheamountof$75,000. Standard ofR eview Under28U.S.C.j 19l5(e),whichgoverns. Lqformapauperisproceedings,thecourthasa mahdatorydutyto screeninitialGlings. ErilineCo.S.A.v.Johnson,440F.3d 648,656-57(4th Cir.2006). Thecourtmustdismissacaseççatanytime''ifthecourtdetenuinesthatthecomplaint tçfqilstqstatçaclaim onwhichreliefmqybegranted.'' 28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Thestandardsforreviewing acomplaintfordismissalunderj 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)arethe sam e as those w hich apply w hen a defendantm oves for dism issalunder FederalRule of Civil . Procedure 12(b)(6). De'Lonta v.Anaelone,330 F.3d 630,633 (4th Cir.2003). Thus,in review ing a com plaintunderthisstatute,the courtm ustaccepta1lw ell-pleaded factualallegations as truç and view the com plaint in the lightm ostfavorable to the plaintiffs. Philios,572 F.3d at 180. To survive dism issalforfailure to state a claim ,a com plaintmustcontain sufGcientfactual allegations çsto raise a rightto reliefabovethe speculative level''and ççto statea claim to reliefthat isplausibleonitsface.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twomblv,550U.S.544,555,570(2007). Discussion . Because the plaintiffs characterize their action as one for violations of their federal constim tionalrights,the courtconstrues the com plaintas being brought pursuantto 42 U .S.C. j 1983. Section 1983providesacauseofactionagainstany ç%person''who,undercolorofstate law ,causesthedeprivation ofanotherperson'srightsunderthe Constitution orlaw softhe United 3 States. 42 U.S.C.j 1983. Forthefollowing reasons,the courtconcludesthattheplaintiffs' complaintfailstostateaplausibleclaim underj1983againstanyofthenameddefendants. 1. Claim saeainstthe Com m onwealth To state a claim under j 1983,aplaintiffmustname a defendantwho qualitles asa ttperson''withinthemeaning ofthestatute. TtleSupremeCourthasmadeclearthat:Eastateisnot açperson'forpurposesofdetermining whocanbesuedunderj1983.'' Va.OfsceforProt.& Advocacy v.Reinhard,405F,3d 185,189 (4th Cir.2005)(citing Willv.M ich.Dep'tofState Police.491U.S.58,71(1989). Accordingly,theCommonwealth ofVirginiaisnotsubjectto liabilityunderj l983andanyclaimsagainstitmustbedismissed. II. C laim s azainstthe IndividualD efendants The courtm ustalso dism iss the claim s asserted againstthe individualdefendants. W ith respectto the plaintiffs'claim that Scopellitiand M iller provided false testim ony attrial,Sssuch claim issubjecttodiymissalbecalpetheSupremeCourthasspeciGcally heldthatpoliceofGcers areimmunefrom anactionarisingunderj1983forallegedperjury.'' Smithv.M ccarthy.349F. App'x851,858n.10(4thCir.2009)(citingBriscoev.LaHue,460U.S.325,242-43(1983:. The courtlikew ise concludes thatJudge H iggins and Darby Lowe are im m une from liability. See Mirelesv.Waco,502U.S.9,11(1991)(discussingjudicialimmunityandexplainingthatitEdisnot . overcomebyallegationsofbadfaithormalice'');Dababnahv.Keller-Burnside,208F.3d467,470 (4th Cir.2000) (observing that çd(a) prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity forprosecutorial functionsSintimatelyassociatedwiththejudicialphaseofthecriminalprocess''')(quotingImbler v.Pachtman.424U.S.409,430(1976));Carterv.Burch,34F.3d257,263(4thCir.1994)(noting that(çltqheCourtinlmblerspecificallyheldthatthepresentationoffalsetestimony incourtisa chargeforwhichtheprosecutorisaffordedabsoluteimmunity'). 4 C onclusion Forthereasonsstated,thecourtwl11granttheplaintlffs'motion forleavetoproceedin forma paupeds. However, their complaint will be dlsmlssed pursllnnt to 28 U.S.C. j 1915(e)(2)@ )(1i). The Clerk isdireded to send coplesofthism emorandum opinion and the accompanying ordertotheplnlntiffs. p D ATED:This >F day ofApril, 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 5
]]>
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.
