Jones v. United States of America et al, No. 7:2014cv00410 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 8/6/2014. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION OWAIIAN M. JONES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 7:14CV00410 OPINION By: James P. Jones United States District Judge Owaiian M. Jones, Pro Se Plaintiff. Plaintiff Owaiian M. Jones, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action against the United States and a judge of this court, seeking monetary damages for the judge s allegedly racist views and refusal to recuse himself from Jones cases. Given the nature of Jones claims, the court construed and docketed the action as a complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), with jurisdiction vested under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. After review of the complaint, I conclude that the lawsuit must be summarily dismissed as frivolous. The court must dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer if the court determines the action or claim is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). An inmate s complaint may be summarily dismissed under this section if it fails to allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989) (interpreting frivolous in former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). An individual may bring a civil suit against a federal officer for damages stemming from a constitutional violation. 1 Bivens, 403 U.S. at 392. Judges, however, enjoy absolute immunity against civil claims for monetary damages for actions taken in their judicial functions. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 364 (1978). The well established purpose of absolute immunity is to insulate the decisionmaking process from the harassment of prospective litigation. Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292, 295 (1988) (superseded by statute on other grounds). My statutory authority to summarily dismiss frivolous complaints includes the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless or which describe fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28. Jones 1 Under the well established legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States cannot be sued under Bivens for constitutional violations. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994). Thus, Jones claim against the United States for damages under Bivens must be dismissed as frivolous. -2- claims in this lawsuit fall squarely in this class and accordingly I will summarily dismiss the action under § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous. A separate Final Order will be entered herewith. DATED: August 6, 2014 /s/ James P. Jones United States District Judge -3-
]]>
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.
