Becker v. Clarke et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 5/2/12 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 5/2/12. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STEPHEN BECKER,
Plaintiff
*
*
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. DKC-12-1214
*
JUDGE TONI E. CLARKE,
MARVIN LISS,
Defendants
*
*
******
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff brings this self-represented action against Marvin Liss,1 a private attorney, and
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Judge Toni E. Clarke. He asserts jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. ' 1331 and ' 1332 and states that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been
violated. Specifically, Becker complains that Judge Clarke entered an ex parte order against him,
drafted by Liss, which resulted in the garnishment of his property. Attachments to the complaint
reveal that order was entered during Plaintiff’s state child support proceedings.2 ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) which shall
be granted. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that it shall be dismissed under the
1
Plaintiff describes Liss as a Maryland resident with four offices, three in Maryland, the fourth in the
District of Columbia. All of the acts complained of occurred in Maryland. In the absence of any federal claim, this Court
would have jurisdiction only where there is diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. '
1332. Because all of the parties are Maryland residents, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction.
2
In Becker v. Liss, et al., Civil Action No. L-12-865 (D. Md.) Plaintiff alleged Judge Clarke and
Marvin Liss violated his civil rights by entering an ex parte order concerning child support. In that case, Becker detailed
his efforts to have the order vacated and his child support order modified. He indicated that ultimately his driver’s
license was suspended for nonpayment of support. He claimed that unnamed employees of the Prince George’s County
Circuit Court, the Attorney Grievance Commission and State Commission on Judicial Disabilities failed to investigate his
complaints regarding entry of the ex parte order. That case was dismissed on April 6, 2012.
provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); see also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden,
64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995).
The defense of absolute immunity extends to Aofficials whose special functions or
constitutional status requires complete protection from suit.@ Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,
807 (1982). Judges, whether presiding at the state or federal level, are clearly among those officials
who are entitled to such immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Because it is a
benefit to the public at large, Awhose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their
functions with independence and without fear of consequences,@ Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554
(1967), absolute immunity is necessary so that judges can perform their functions without
harassment or intimidation. AAlthough unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?