The opinion
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
July 30, 2024
JULIAN LEE GREEN, ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA
v.) No. 23-ICA-301 (Cir. Ct. Ohio Cnty. Case No. CC-35-2023-C-AP-9)
CHRISTOPHER HOOD,
LT. CLOUSTON, and
DAVID LEDDY,
Defendants Below, Respondents
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Julian Lee Green appeals the June 15, 2023, order of the Circuit Court of
Ohio County which granted Respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Respondents
Christopher Hood and Lt. Clouston timely filed a response.1 Respondent David Leddy did
not participate in this appeal. Mr. Green did not file a reply.
This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
This matter stems from an incident that occurred on November 1, 2021, that resulted
in Mr. Green being criminally charged with battery. On September 22, 2022, Mr. Green
was found not guilty of battery. On December 29, 2022, Mr. Green filed his underlying
civil complaint in the Magistrate Court of Ohio County. In his handwritten complaint, Mr.
Green alleges:
(1) Christopher Hood causing an intentional infliction of emotional distress
pursuing baseless charges of the Petitioner. Abuse of Power. Violations of
Constitutional Rights. (2) Lt. Clouston, abuse of power pursuing baseless
charges, Violations of Constitutional Rights 1st Amendment to redress the
Government. Retaliation and harassment against the Petitioner causing an
intentional infliction of emotional distress abuse of power. (3) Daniel Leddy-
1
Mr. Green is self-represented. Mr. Hood and Lt. Clouston are represented by
Thomas E. Buck, Esq.
1
assault and/or battery against the Petitioner. Destruction of property. Causing
mental and emotional harm to the Petitioner. $10,000.00.
On January 10, 2023, Respondent Christopher Hood filed a motion for a more
definite statement or in the alternative motion to dismiss. On January 16, 2023, Respondent
David Leddy filed an answer to the complaint and moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. On January 30, 2023, Respondent Lt. Clouston filed a motion to dismiss the claims
against him.
On February 2, 2023, the magistrate court dismissed Mr. Green’s claims on the basis
that he failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On February 15, 2023, Mr.
Green appealed the magistrate’s decision to the circuit court. The appeal to circuit court
does not assert a basis for appeal against any individual Respondent but centers exclusively
on alleged conflicts of interest of the magistrate.
Thereafter, Lt. Clouston and Mr. Hood moved the circuit court to dismiss Mr.
Green’s claims. On April 3, 2023, Mr. Green filed his Response to Motion to
Dismiss/Motion for In-Person Hearing in which he asks for a chance to present legal
argument and evidence in support of his claims. The response and motion do not
specifically state what legal arguments or evidence Mr. Green wished to put forth and does
not specifically respond or dispute the arguments made in the motion to dismiss. Further,
Mr. Green did not attach any affidavits, transcripts, or other exhibits to the motion.
On April 12, 2023, Lt. Clouston and Mr. Hood moved the circuit court for an order
imposing reasonable limitations on Mr. Green’s ability to file civil actions on the basis that
he had filed more than thirty suits in State and Federal courts.2
On May 10, 2023, Lt. Clouston and Mr. Hood moved for summary judgment on the
basis that they are entitled to various immunities, Mr. Green’s claims were barred by the
public duty doctrine, Mr. Green’s complaint violated West Virginia Code § 29-12A-6(d)
(1986), and Mr. Green is not entitled to further discovery since the matter was an appeal
from magistrate court. It does not appear that Mr. Green filed a response to the motion for
summary judgment.
2
Indeed, Mr. Green is no stranger to this Court. This Court has previously affirmed
the grant of summary judgment of Mr. Green’s claims in Green v. McFarland, No. 23-
ICA-121, 2024 WL 493586 (W. Va. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2024) (memorandum decision) and
affirmed the dismissal of his claims in Green v. Schaffer, No. 23-ICA-181, 2024 WL
1256375 (W. Va. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2024) (memorandum decision). Furthermore, in
addition to the current matter before the Court, Mr. Green has two additional appeals that
are pending before the Court in Case No. 23-ICA-374 and Case No. 23-ICA-310.
2
On June 15, 2023, the circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment as
to Mr. Green’s claims. In that order, the circuit court noted that the only evidence before
the circuit court was that Mr. Green was charged with a crime, a magistrate found probable
cause, and then he was ultimately found not guilty. The complaint did not allege that either
the police or the prosecutor’s office knowingly violated a clearly established law or
otherwise acted maliciously and therefore Lt. Clouston and Mr. Hood were entitled to
qualified immunity. Further, Mr. Hood was entitled to prosecutorial immunity while both
Mr. Hood and Lt. Clouston were entitled to statutory immunity per § 29-12A-5(a)(5).
Lastly, the complaint should be dismissed because it specified a demand for monetary
damages sought in violation of § 29-12A-6(d) (1986). It is from this order that Mr. Green
appeals.
It is well established in West Virginia that “[a] circuit court’s entry of summary
judgment is reviewed de novo.” Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 190, 451
S.E.2d 755, 756 (1994). In conducting our de novo review, we apply the same standard for
granting summary judgment that is applied by the circuit court. Under that standard,
[s]ummary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could
not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where
the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential
element of the case that it has the burden to prove.
Id. at 190, 451 S.E.2d at 756, syl. pt. 4.
On appeal, Mr. Green asserts that the circuit court erred by “refusing to hold a
hearing to look at evidence.” We disagree. In Miller v. Hatton, 184 W. Va. 765, 769, 403
S.E.2d 782, 786 (1991), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia concluded that
the appellants’ failure “to introduce specific evidence in opposition to ... [the movant’s]
motion for summary judgment undermines their claim that summary judgment was
improperly granted.” Here, Mr. Green failed to respond to the motions for summary
judgment, failed to introduce, or even allege, specific evidence in opposition to
Respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and on appeal, Mr. Green does not assert that
the circuit court erred in concluding that his claims were barred by the immunity defenses
asserted by the Respondents, the public duty doctrine, or that his complaint violates West
Virginia Code § 29-12A-6(d). Accordingly, the circuit court did not err by granting
summary judgment.
Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the June 15, 2023, order of the Circuit Court of
Ohio County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
3
ISSUED: July 30, 2024
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear
4