Luciano v. Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles et al, No. 7:2018cv00328 - Document 12 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 8/25/2018. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST. A7 RO CO0R7 ANOKE,VA FILED IN T H E U N ITE D STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R TH E W ESTE RN D ISTM CT O F W RGIN IA ROA N O U D IW SIO N AtJC 27 2213 JU C. BY: LEM CLE ' AAR ON A .LU CIAN O , Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.7:18cv00328 By: W RGIN IA DEPARTM EN T OF H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld CiliefUnited StatesDistrictJudge M O T O R VE H ICLE S,eta1.y D efendants. M EM O RAN D U M O PIN IO N Before the courtispcq . K plainéffAaronA.Luciano'srtuciano'')moéontoamend . . ' com plaintto add pazéesand am end originalcom plaint.ECF N o.9.Thecouztpzeviously granted leaveto amendinitsdismissaloftheorigm 'alcomplaintwithoutprejudice.ECF No. 8.Forthereasonssetforth below,Luciano'sm odon to am end willbeD EN IED asm oot and theClerk shallFILE theproposedamendedcomplaint(ECF No.9-1)asofthisdate. Onltzly11,2018,Luciano fûedacomplaintagainsttheVirginiaD epar% entof MotorVelùcles(<fDM V'')andAttorneyGeneralofVirginiaforthesuspension ofllis dtiver'slicensedueto nonpaym eptofcourtcosts.ECF No.2.ThecouttgrantedLuciano's Luciano v. Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles et al modon toproceedLq forma au erisonluly 12,2018.ECF No.3.Pursuantto 28U.S.C. Doc. 12 j1915(e)(2)(B),thecourt. dismissed Luciano'sclnim forfnilingto stateacl/im on wilich reliefm ay begtanted in the snm eordet.Li The complaint,wllich included a one-patagraph . desctipdon ofthecbim ,failed to m eettlaerequirem entsofFederalRuleofCivilProcedure 8 becauseitclid notstatethecitcum stancesofLuciano'scourtcosts,statusoftlaeunderlym 'g 1 Dockets.Justia.com litkadonthat1edtothesuspension,oranypertinentinformadonthatcouldallow thecourt to assessthem eritsoflliscbim .The cout'tflzrflAerheld thatLuciano asserted no basisfor federaljurisclicdonbecause,basedonthefactspresented,thiscolzttlackedjlltisdictionto review hiscbim undeztheRooker-Feldm an doctdne.Thecourtprovided Luciano leave to am end lniscom plaintto include facm alinform ation perénentto hisclcim ,identifythe statute to be challenged,and state histheory ofthe case. Luciano m oved to am end lniscom plainton August13,2018.ECF N o.9.ln the proposed amended complaint,LucianochallengestheconsétazdonalityofVa.Codej46.23957)and namesGovernorRalphNortham,AttorneyGeneralM arkHerring,and D epar% entofM otorVeléclesCom missionerItichard H olcom b asdefendantsin thei. r officialcapacities.ECF N o.9-1.Luciano statesthathislicensewasrevoked in 2007 forone yearbythe<yuvenileLicensingStattztey?'lbutthattherevocadondidnotbeginuntil2017 duetounpaidcourtdebt.Ldaat2.Luciano also allegesthathissuspension resulting from colxrtdebtran concurrently to hisothetsuspensions,and thatrfallothersuspensionsw ere placed on hold undlCourtD ebtwaspaid.''Ii. . Luciano clnim sthatthedeprivadon oflnislicense,withouta state detetminadon ofllis abilityto pay thecourtdebtoropportaznity to be heard in connecdon with the suspension, violatestheDueProcessand EqualProtection Clauses.Ldaat2-3.Luciano also assertsa violadon oftheEqualProtection Clausebecausethestamtesubjectspeoplew1t. 1,1courtdebts to unduly harsh and discrim inatory tzeatm entcom pated to otherdebtors.J-I. L at3.Luciano seeks(1)adeclaratoryjudgmentthatVa.Codej46.2-3957)isunconstimtional,and (2)an 1LucianodoesnotprovideacitadonfozthefquvenileLicensingStamte. ''Construingthecomplaintliberally,thecourt presllmesthatLucianoreferstoVa.Codej46.2-334.01,whichsetsoutlicensesuspensionandzevocadonptocedtues forjuvenilesconvictedofcertainoffenses. 2 injuncéon prevendngthedefendantsfrom enforcingthestamteand ditecdngreinstatement ofautom adcally suspended driver'slicenses.1d.at3. 1I. FederalRuleofCivilPtocedute15(a)ptovidesthat<<(aqpartymayamenditspleafling onceasam atterofcouzsewithin 21 daysaftetserdng it....In allothercases,a pat'tym ay am end itspleading only with the opposing party'swritten consentorthe court'sleave.''Rule 15allowscourtstofreelygrantleavetoamendapleaHingTfwhenjusdcesotequites.''ld.;see alsoJohnsonv.OroweatFoodsCo.,785F.2d503,511(4thCir.1986).fflftheunderlying factsorcircumstancesrelieduponbyaplninéffmaybeapropersubjectofrelief,heought to beafforded an opportaznity to testhiscbim on them erits.''Fom an v.D avis,371 U.S. 178,182(1962).A plaintiffproceedingp-r.q. &qisheldtof'lessstringentstandards''than counseled plaindffs,and thecourtm ustconstrue hisclaim sliberally.SeeErickson v. Prdus,551U.S.89,94(2007).However,thecourtneednotignoreaclearfailuretoallege factsthatsetforth a cognizableclnim .SeeW ellerv.D e 'tofSoc.SerdcesforCi of Baltimore,901F.2d387,391(4thCir.1990). Thegrantordenialofleaveliesin the sound cliscredon ofthe disttictcourt.Seq Gambelliv.United States,904F.Supp.494,497 (E.D.Va.1995),aff'd,87F.3d 1308 (4th Cir. 1996).D enialofleaveto nmend consdtutesabuseofdiscredon withoutsufhcientreason, such asfutilityofamendment,unduedelay,bad faith,dilatorymotive,undueptejudice,or repeated failure to curedehcienciesby pteviousam endm ents.SeeFom an,371 U .S.at182. ffunlessaproposed am endm entm ay clearly be seen to be f'utile because ofsubstandveor proceduralconsideradons,conjectuteaboutthemeritsoftheliégadon should notenterinto 3 thedecision whetherto allow am endm ent''D avisv.Pi er AitcraftCo .,615 F.2d 606,613 (4thCit.1980)(internalcitaéonsandquotationsomitted).A districtcourtTfdetermines futilityunderthestandardofFed.R.Civ.P.12q$.''ChatteryInt'l,Inc.v.JoLida,lnc.,No.: W13Q-10-2236,2011WL 4527337,at*3(D.Md.Sep.27,2011).UnderRule129$(6),<<a com plaintm ustcontain suffcientfactualm atter,acçepted astrtze,to Tstatea clnim . to relief thatisplausibleonitsface.'''Ashcroftv.lbal,556U.S.662,700(2009)(quotingBellAtl. Co .v.Twombl,550U.S.544,597(2007)).Therefore,amodontoamendpleadingsis f'utileifitdoesnotstate aclnim to reliefthatisplausible on itsface. 111. Thecourtalready provided Luciano leave to am end lliscom pbintin itsdism issal orderentered on August7,2018.ECF N o.8.I-lisrequestforleave thereforeism oot. H owevez,thecourtwl 'llzeview Luciano'sclnim ptusuantto itsdutyunder28 U.S.C. j1915(e)(2)(B)to screen initialpleadingsffedLq forma au eris.Thecolnttmustdetetmine whethertheaction<f(i)isfdvolousotmalicious;$)failsto stateaclnim onwbichreliefmay begranted;ortiii)seeksmonetaryreliefagainstadefendantwhoisimmunefrom such relief.''Afterreviewing theproposed nm ended com plnint,the couttconcludesthatLuciano's clnim sare notcleatly futileand am enclm entshould beallowed. D ismissalofthe lastcom plaintlainged on two grounds.Fbst,thecom plaintdid not m eetRule8 becauseLuciano failed to statea cl/im on wltich reliefm ay be gtanted.Luciano provided no specihc inform adon aboutthe suspension ofhislicense orthe statute he inyended to challenge.In hisproposed am ended com plaint,Luciano now statesthathis licensewasrevoked foroneyearin 2007 butthattherevocadon did notbeginxlm til2017 due 4 to unpaid courtdebt.ECF N o.9-1,at2.Luciano also appearsto allegethathe faced suspensionsuntelated to couttdebtsthatm ay have been im pacted by thispardculat revocadon.Li Importantly,heclato ed thatheischallenging theconsdtuéonalityofVa. Codej46.2-3957)andprovidedhisgroundsfordoingso.Althoughtheproposedamended com pldntdoesnotprovide extensiveinform adon aboutLuciano'srevocadon orthe proceedingsleading to thatrevocaéon,Luciano isaptt. z. K plaintiffand held to ffless .. stringentstandards''than counseled pbintiffs.Consttnaing Luciano'scl/im sliberally,the ptoposed am ended com plaintpzovidessuffkientnodce to thedefendantsaboutthe revocadon and clnim satissueunderRule 8.See Erickson,551U .S.at94. Thesecondreasonfordisnaissingtheoriginalcomplaintwasforlackofjurisclicéon undertheRooker-Feldm an doctrine.The couttconsidered Stinniev.H olcom b,N o.3:16- CV-00044,2017WL 963234,at*1(W .D.Va.Mar.13,2017),a ealdismissed cause remanded,No.17-1740,2018W L 2337750 (4th Ciz.May23,2018),whetethecolzrtheld thatitdid nothavejurisdicdon overachallengetoVa.Codej46.2-395in partbecause: Congress and the Consdtuéon have notgranted federaldistrict courtsthe authority to hearappealsftom state courts.The U .S. Supzem e Courtis the only federalcourt authorized to do so. Because this case itw olves allegedly unconsdtazdonalsuspension orders of V ' qinia state courts,Plaindffs m ust seek relief from Virginia's appellate courts and ulém ately the U .S. Suprem e Courq nottllisCourt. Thisreasoning isbased in theRooker-Feldm an docttine,which generally prohibitslowet federalcourtsfrom teviewing state courtdecisions.See Friedm an's Inc.v.D unla ,290 F.3d 191,196 (4th Cir.2002).Thecourtin Stinniedismissedtheclsim withoutprejudicebecause Tfgtjhetextand structureofj46.2-395(aswellastheSuspension Formsalachedto the 5 Complaint)makeplain thatthestatecourtsuspendsthelicenses,nottheCommissionet,'' and therefozetheacdon wasprecluded by Rooker-Felclm an.2017 W L 963234,at*13. Although disrnissing the com plaint,thecourtnoted thatffitm ay bepossibleto reconsdm te gcllimslikethis)in afot'm and againstadefendantsuch thatalowerfederalcourtwould havejIlt-isdiclion.''.ld.at*20. In M ay ofthisyear,the U.S.CourtofAppealsforthe Fourth Citcuitrem anded Sdnniefotlackofjlltisdicdonbecausethedismissalwithoutpzejudicewasnotafinalorder. SeeStinrliev.Holcomb,No.17-1740,2018WL 2337750,at*2 (4th Cir.M ay23,2018).The FourthCircuitagreedthatthecomplaintasstateddidnotallegesubjectmatterjurisdicéon, butthattheplainéffsmaybeabletoreconsétutetheirclaimsto obtain jurisdiction.J-I. LThe majörityopinion didnotsuggesthow theclnimscouldbereconsdtutedtomeritjtuisdicdon. However,ClaiefJudgeGzegory'sdissentshedsomeEghtonsubjectmatterjtuisdicéonover thistypeofclnim.ChiefJudgeGregorydisagteedwit.hthelowercourt'sopirzion,including itsRooker-Feldmananalysis,andopinedthatthecout.tinfacthadjutisdicdonbecauseffno statecourthasheard orrendered a decision on Plninéffs'constitudonalclnim s- and so,the districtcolzrtcannotpossibly supplanttherole ofstateappellate cotzrtsorthe Suprem e Cout'tbyexercisingjIxtisdicdonoversuchindependentcbims.''Id.at*8(Gregory,C. J., dissenting).Thedissentreframedtheplnintiffs'challenge: Plaintiffs are also not challenging the state coutt decisions them selves. They do not contest theit convictions, the applicability of the assessed fines and fees, or theit failure to m ake the required paym ents. Rather, they challenge the statutory schem e,and the process itprovides,asvioladng their due process and equalpzotecdon dghts.A sin Skinner,there is no state courtjudgment asto tlae clnims broughtin federal court. The absence of a reviewable state judgment, by 6 defirliéon, m eans Rooker-Felclm an cannot apply, fot precludesonly appenate review by distzictcourts. Li at*9(Gtegory,C. J.,dissenting).Sdnnieisnow beforethedisttictcout'tagainonremand and plaindffshavebeen allow ed to am end theitcom plaintby Septem ber11,2018.See Sdnnie,No.3:16-CV-00044,ECF No.83 (W.D.Va.fzedluly 2,2018). The decisionsin Stinnie offertwo tracksofanalysisforconsidering Luciano's consdttztionalchallengetoVa.Codej46.2-3957)basedonllis2007licenserevocadonand the 2017 adnlinistration ofthelicensezevocadon.Thelow ercourt'sanalysisin Stitlnie, w hich likely willberevisited oncetheplaindffsam end theircom plnint,suggeststhatRookerFeldm an also would preclude the courtform heating Luciano'sclnim despitethisnew informadon.However,JudgeGregory'sclissentsuggeststhatthecouttcotzldheatLuciano's challenge to hislicenserevocadon becauseLuciano challengesthe statutory schem e and its PrOCCSS. AtthisstageoftheM gaéon,thecourtneed notdecidewhich jtzristoffersthemore persuasiveargum ent.Courtspermitaptoposed am endm entunlessitKfm ay clearly be seen to be ftztilebecause ofsubstandve orprocedtualconsideradons....''D avis,615 F.2d at613. Similarly,under28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B)@ ,thecollt'tallowsapleadingftledi!lforma au eristo advanceunlessitKffailsto state a clnim on wlzich reliefm ay begranted.''Asapm .- &q plaintiffheld to f'lessstdngentstandards,7'Luciano now hasadded sufficientinform adon . to llisproposed am ended com plaintso thatitisnotcleady f'utile.See Etickson,551 U.S.at 94.Luciano'scom plaintshallbe ftled and thedefendantshallhavean opportunity to respond to lnisclnim ,pardcularlygiven the debateabouttheapplicability ofthe RookerFeldm an doctdne to these typesofclnim s. 111. Accordingly,Luciano'smodonto amend (ECF No.9)willbeDENIED asm oot andtheCletkisDIRECTED toFILE theptoposedamendedcomplaint(ECFNo.9-1)as ofthisdate. An appropriate O rderwillbeentered.The clerk isdirected to send a copy oftllis M em orandllm Opinion to prq m plaindff. - - Enteted: 0 2-2r - 7& /& ); . . . ' /wf r<Z.r.J ' . V -V V' ;, M ichaelF.Urb z nski ClliefUrlited StxtesDistrictqùdgë 8 , .
]]>
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.
