Sewell v. Chasanow

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 9/29/2016. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STARSH SEWELL

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW

*

Defendant

Civil Action No. JKB-16-3256

*
***
MEMORANDUM

The above-captioned case was filed on September 21, 2016, together with a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. Because she appears to be indigent, plaintiff’s motion shall be
granted. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint must be dismissed.
The complaint alleges that Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of this court engaged in “race
based hate crimes” when plaintiff’s prior civil complaints were dismissed. The convoluted
narrative contained in the complaint spins a complicated web of alleged conspiracies which
plaintiff blames for everything from foreclosure on her home to the loss of custody of her
children. The theories of race and sex discrimination that underpin the widening conspiracy
plaintiff claims is the cause of the problems she has suffered are now familiar to this court.1
Plaintiff asserts in this case that “Judge Chasanow conspired with [the father of Plaintiff’s
children, Prince George’s County Court and other parties] to deprive Sewell of her rights to her
children and her property” by “producing judicial orders that are judicial in nature, but are void
and absent of all jurisdiction.” ECF 1 at p. 2.

1

See Sewell v. PG County Dept of Social Services, Civil Action DKC-12-2402; Sewell v. PG County Dept.
of Social Services, Civil Action No. DKC-12-2522; Sewell v. Howard, Civil Action No. JFM-12-2736; Sewell v.
Dore, Civil Action No. AW-12-2889; Howard v. Sewell, Civil Action No. DKC-14-2205; Sewell v. John Howard
Sr., Civil Action PWG-15-1539; Sewell v. Fidelity National Financial, Civil Action PWG-15-3077; Sewell v.
Fidelity National Financing, Inc., Civil Action DKC-16-906.

This cause of action cannot be maintained because it is prohibited by the doctrine of
judicial immunity. See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 226-27 (1988). “If judges were
personally liable for erroneous decisions, the resulting avalanche of suits, most of them frivolous
but vexatious, would provide powerful incentives for judges to avoid rendering decisions likely
to provoke such suits. The resulting timidity would be hard to detect or control, and it would
manifestly detract from independent and impartial adjudication. Nor are suits against judges the
only available means through which litigants can protect themselves from the consequences of
judicial error. Most judicial mistakes or wrongs are open to correction through ordinary
mechanisms of review, which are largely free of the harmful side effects inevitably associated
with exposing judges to personal liability.” Id.
Additionally, plaintiff’s assertion that Judge Chasanow is “disqualified” to be an Article
III judge and should be impeached is not a matter this court has jurisdiction to consider. The
complaint shall be dismissed by separate order which follows.

September 29, 2016
Date

___________/s/_________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2