“A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”
How later courts described this case
- “A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:22-cv-00063-MR
ROY LEE WILLIAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
IREDELL COUNTY DETENTION )
CENTER, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the Amended
Complaint [Doc. 17]. The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Doc.
15].
I. BACKGROUND
The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Iredell
County Detention Center (ICDC) on charges of kidnapping, assault with a
deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and communicating threats. See
N.C. Case No. 21CRS052963. He filed a Letter in the Eastern District of
North Carolina that was docketed as a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1]. The case was transferred to this Court on May 19,
2022. [Docs. 2, 3]. On June 27, 2022, the Court issued an Order providing
the Plaintiff with a blank § 1983 complaint form and granting him the
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. [Doc. 11]. He did so, and the
Amended Complaint is now before the Court for initial review. [Doc. 17].
He names as Defendants: “Iredell County Court System Judge(s)” and
“D.A.’s Office.” [Id. at 2]. He appears to assert that the charges against him
are false; that he has not received a probable cause hearing; and that the
Iredell County judge, the prosecutor’s office, the clerk’s office, and his own
lawyer, have failed to explain why he has not received a probable cause
hearing. [Id. at 4-5]. As injury, he claims that he is “[i]ncarcarated over lies,
never no probable cause hearing, and the Judges, D.A.’s office, and attorney
Sam Winthrop will not tell me why I never had a probable cause hearing
(Sheriff’s Department should of seen through the lies).” [Id. at 5] (errors
uncorrected). In his claim for relief, he states:
I could have proved my innocents at the probable cause
hearing, but Iredell Court(s), D.A.’s office, and attorney Sam
Winthrop, and Iredell County Sheriff’s department have let me
set incarcerated for 7 months. I’m asking for $1,000,000 for pain
and suffering and charges taken off my record (1 million dollars).
[Id.] (errors uncorrected).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
review the Amended Complaint to determine whether it is subject to
dismissal on the grounds that it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring frivolity review for prisoners’ civil actions
seeking redress from governmental entities, officers, or employees).
In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Amended
Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon
clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional
scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore,
a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not
permit a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his complaint
which set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was
“deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.”
Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999).
As a preliminary matter, the Amended Complaint contains allegations
that are not directed to any Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (requiring
defendants to be named in the caption); Shine v. Charlotte Mecklenburg
Police Dep’t, No. 3:17-cv-306-FDW, 2018 WL 2943456 (W.D.N.C. June 12,
2018) (dismissing as nullities the allegations against individuals not named
as defendants in the caption as required by Rule 10(a)). Accordingly, the
allegations directed at non-parties are dismissed.
The Plaintiff purports to name Iredell County judges and prosecutors
as Defendants. However, judges are immune from suit under the doctrine
of judicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1996) (“A
judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his
exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural
errors.”); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 419 (1976) (stating that judicial
“immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and
corruptly, and it is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt
judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges
should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without
fear of consequences”) (internal quotations omitted). And prosecutors are
immune from suit under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. Imbler, 424
U.S. at 419. As such, the Plaintiff’s action against these Defendants must
be dismissed on this basis alone.
Even if Defendants were not immune from suit, the Plaintiff’s claims
appear to be barred by abstention principles. The Supreme Court held in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), that a federal court should not
interfere with state criminal proceedings except in the most narrow and
extraordinary of circumstances. Id. at 43-44. Under the abstention doctrine,
abstention is proper in federal court when (1) there is an ongoing state court
proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; and (3)
the petitioner has an adequate opportunity to present the federal claims in
the state proceeding. Emp’rs Res. Mgmt. Co. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126,
1134 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his case
presents those “most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances” that would
qualify as an exception to Younger abstention and necessitate federal
intervention. See Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The
Court would, therefore, abstain from addressing the Plaintiff’s claims while
state court criminal charges are pending against him even if he had named
a Defendant against whom this action may proceed.
Moreover, the Plaintiff seeks the dismissal of his criminal charges even
though he was previously informed that he may not challenge his
confinement, conviction, and/or sentence in this § 1983 action. [Doc. 11 at
3].
The Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted and, therefore, it will be dismissed without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Amended Complaint has failed to pass initial review.
The Court will allow the Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his
Complaint, if he so chooses, to demonstrate that Younger abstention does
not apply, and to otherwise properly state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Any Second Amended Complaint will be subject to all timeliness
and procedural requirements and will supersede his previous filings.
Piecemeal amendment will not be allowed. Should Plaintiff fail to timely file
a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order, this action will
be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Amended Complaint [Doc. 17] is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
2. The Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his
Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If Plaintiff fails
to file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order
and within the time limit set by the Court, this action will be
dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully instructed to mail the Plaintiff a blank
§ 1983 prisoner complaint form and a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 7, 2022
Martifi Reidinger ee
Chief United States District Judge “AES