Edokobi v. Motz
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/17/2013. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 12/18/13)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EMMANUEL EDOKOBI,
Plaintiff,
v
JUDGE FREDERICK J. MOTZ
Defendant
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
Civil Action No. DKC-13-3378
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Emmanuel Edokobi is suing the Honorable J. Frederick Motz,1 a member of this bench,
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, for alleged “race-based retaliation and discrimination” and
due process violations. Edokobi, who is self-represented, has paid the full $400 filing and
administrative fee. As relief, he requests damages and declaratory relief.
I.
Background
Edokobi’s allegations arise from an earlier case, Edokobi v. Litton Loan Servicing LP,
Civil Case No. JFM-11-1332 (D. Md. 2011), over which Judge Motz presided. In that case,
Edokobi, proceeding pro se, sued Litton, the servicer of the mortgage on his foreclosed home, for
actions allegedly taken to secure the property after foreclosure. Specifically, Edokobi alleged
Litton acted wrongfully on May 18, 2010, by installing new locks and removing his personal
belongings from the residence. Id., ECF No. 7 at 1. During the course of the proceeding,
Edokobi filed two motions challenging Judge Motz’s assignment to the case. The motions were
based on Edokobi’s erroneous assumption that his case had been transferred to the North
Division of the District of Maryland. Id. As was explained to Edokobi by Judge Motz in a
Memorandum dated August 12, 2011, the case had not been transferred; rather, Judge Motz was
1
Plaintiff erroneously names “Frederick J. Motz” in the heading of this case. Judge Motz’s name is J. Frederick
Motz and the docket will be amended accordingly.
assigned cases in the Southern Division due to a temporary shortage of judges. Id. at ECF No.
25. The case assignment was appropriate, and Judge Motz denied both Motions. Id. at ECF No.
26.
On June 15, 2012, Judge Motz granted summary judgment in favor of Litton. Id. at ECF
Nos. 74, 83 and 84.2 In the accompanying Memorandum, there was an inadvertent typographic
error which may have given rise to the concerns Edokobi is presenting. The Memorandum
reads:
The ground for the motion is that on deposition plaintiff admitted that he did not
have any evidence to show that defendant was involved in the alleged events of
May 18, 2010, which provide a basis for this action. The record establishes that
defendant was, in fact, not involved in those events. The evidence as presented in
support of defendant's motion for summary judgment establishes that defendant
did not install locks on the doors of plaintiff’s residence until May 29, 2010 eleven days after the events alleged in the amended complaint occurred. By that
time plaintiff’s residence was vacant, and defendant, as the servicer of a mortgage
on the subject premises, acted entirely appropriately to secure the property under
the terms of the applicable deed of trust.
In opposing the motion plaintiff has come forward with no evidence to suggest
that plaintiff did act improperly by installing new locks on the subject premises
and removing his personal belongings on May 11, 2010. Accordingly, defendant
is entitled to the summary judgment it seeks.
Id. at ECF No. 83. (emphasis added). Clearly, the Memorandum meant to state, “[i]n opposing
the motion Plaintiff has come forward with no evidence to suggest that Defendant acted
improperly by installing new locks on the subject premises and removing his personal
belongings on May 18, 2010.” (emphasis added). If these inadvertent typographical errors
somehow suggested to Edokobi that he was accused of changing the locks and removing his own
personal belongings, and lying about others having changed the locks, this clarification will allay
his concerns of false innuendo.
2
Edokobi’s appeal of the decision was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in
Edokobi v Litton Loan Servicing, LLP, CA4 No.12-1760 (March 29, 2013) (unpublished), and his Petition for Writ
of Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. See Edokobi v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, 134 S. Ct. 204 (U.S.
October 07, 2013) (No. 12-1500).
2
II.
Discussion
This Complaint seeks to hold a federal district judge liable for alleged civil rights
violations arising out of his performance of judicial decisions rendered in a prior case. It is wellsettled law that judges are entitled to immunity to suit in the performance of their judicial
functions. See Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 13 (1991). “The doctrine of judicial immunity is
founded upon the premise that a judge, in performing his or her judicial duties, should be free to
act upon his or her convictions without threat of suit for damages.” Id. (citations omitted).
Therefore, “[a] judge is absolutely immune from liability for his [or her] judicial acts even if his
[or her] exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors,” Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). Further, judicial immunity shields from suit, not just from
assessment of damages. Mireless, 502 U.S. at 11. Judicial immunity can be overcome in two
circumstances. First, a judge is not immune from liability for his or her non-judicial acts.
Stump, 435 U.S. at 360. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature,
that were taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction. Id. at 356–57. In determining whether an
act is judicial, a court examines whether the act in contention is a function normally performed
by a judge. Id. at 362.
Jurisdiction was proper and actions at issue, all involving adjudication of a prior civil
proceeding, were undoubtedly judicial in nature and entitled to judicial immunity. In a Motion
for Summary Judgment, Litton, as the moving party, was required to show there was no genuine
issue as to any material fact and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297
(4th Cir. 2008). Once shown, Edokobi, as the party opposing summary judgment, was required
to “ ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Bouchat v. Balt.
Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P.
3
56(e)). Thus, once Litton provided evidence that it was not involved in the matters alleged, the
burden was on Edokobi to provide evidence to establish a genuine issue concerning Litton’s
participation, and he failed to do so. Judge Motz found: 1) Litton filed evidence demonstrating it
played no role in the change of locks or removal of Edokobi’s possessions; and 2) Edokobi did
not provide evidence to refute this information. On this basis, Litton was entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law.
The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity compels dismissal of this case.
The
Complaint will be dismissed inherent authority of this court to ensure that a plaintiff has
standing, subject matter jurisdiction exists, and a case is not frivolous. See Mallard v. United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307–308 (1989) (noting
“[s]tatutory provisions may simply codify existing rights or powers. Section 1915(d), for
example, authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious' action, but there is little doubt
they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision”); Ross v. Baron,
493 Fed. Appx. 405 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam), citing Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street
Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (district courts have authority to dismiss
frivolous complaint sua sponte, notwithstanding payment of the filing fee). “A complaint will be
dismissed as ‘frivolous' when ‘it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit.’ ” Montero v.
Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327
(1989).
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this matter will be dismissed by separate Order to follow.
12/17/13
Date
___________/s/________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
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?