Saunders v. Cannon et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION/ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint; Accepting for Docketing 6 Motion for Notice of Errors on the Record; Denying 7 Motion for Leave to Dismiss Without Prejudice Subject to Refiling an Amended Complaint in D.C. Circuit; Clerk is Directed to Close this Case. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/16/2016. (c/m 08/16/2016 jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
HENRY ANTOINE SAUNDERS,
Prisoner Identification No. 38049-037,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. TDC-16-1812
FELICIA C. CANNON and
PATRICIA K. FOSBROOK,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Henry Antoine Saunders, a self-represented inmate at Federal
Correctional Institution-Loretto in Loretto, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint alleging that
Defendants Felicia C. Cannon, Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, and Deputy Clerk Patricia K. Fosbrook violated his due process rights
under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the reasons set forth below,
the Complaint is DISMISSED, and all pending motions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2004, Saunders appeared before the Honorable Deborah K. Chasanow,
United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, to receive a sentence following his
conviction for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
At his sentencing, Saunders asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is a
“live flesh and blood man, here in special visitation under threats, duress, and coercion,” and
because no verified complaint had been filed against him. Compl. Ex., Sentencing Transcript at
2:16-24. Saunders requested that the court dismiss the charges against him. He also stated that
he had fired his attorney.
Judge Chasanow sentenced Saunders to 181 months of imprisonment. Judge Chasanow
informed Saunders of his right to appeal that sentence and stated that, “out of an abundance of
caution,” she would “request that the clerk enter an appeal on his behalf” within ten days of the
judgment. Id. at 51:14-19. Saunders’s terminated counsel and the Assistant United States
Attorney expressed agreement with that approach.
When Judge Chasanow suggested that
Saunders should complete a financial affidavit attesting to his indigency, Saunders’s terminated
counsel requested that Judge Chasanow make a finding that he was indigent based on the
financial information he had submitted to the United States Probation and Pretrial Services
Office. Judge Chasanow stated that if Saunders had not provided the information to Probation
under oath, then he might need to attest to it separately. She then stated, “So probably I will go
ahead and authorize in forma pauperis filing and appeal at this juncture, particularly given, as I
say, the length of the sentence that I have just imposed.” Id. at 53:9-12.
On December 14, 2004, a Notice of Appeal and a Motion and Affidavit in Support for
Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis were docketed in Saunders’s case. The Notice of Appeal,
signed by Fosbrook, stated that Saunders was appealing the judgment in his case, and that the
Notice was entered by the clerk pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. The Motion,
also signed by Fosbrook, stated that Saunders moved for leave to file his appeal in forma
pauperis. The unsigned affidavit accompanying the Motion indicated that Saunders had no
income. That same day, Judge Chasanow granted the Motion. The United States Court of
2
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit subsequently appointed counsel to represent Saunders on his
appeal. On May 2, 2006, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.
On May 19, 2016, Saunders filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, accompanied by a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The
Complaint alleges that the Notice of Appeal and the Motion and Affidavit in Support for Leave
to Appeal In Forma Pauperis filed after Saunders was sentenced were fraudulent because they
“were executed without his knowledge, authority, or request.” Compl. ¶ 9. He claims that the
documents should have indicated that they were filed at the direction of the Court. Saunders
asserts that the filing of these documents violated his due process rights under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. He seeks a declaratory judgment that the record
of his criminal proceedings be deemed “void” and an injunction prohibiting that record from
being used against him. Id. at 7-8. On May 19, 2016, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia (Jackson, J.) issued an order finding that it was not a proper venue for the
case and transferring the matter to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
On June 13, 2016, this Court granted Saunders’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. On June 24, 2016, Saunders filed a Motion for Notice of Errors on the Record,
complaining that his Motion for Reconsideration of the transfer order, received by the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia on June 2, 2016, was not docketed. On July 5,
2016, Saunders filed a Motion for Leave to Dismiss Without Prejudice Subject to Refiling an
Amended Complaint in D.C. Circuit. The Motion indicates that Saunders wishes to file an
amended complaint in the “D.C. Circuit” to “address and correct all inaccuracies and due process
violations that have occurred prior to the transfer of this case by the Clerk of the D.C. Court, as
3
there are no administrative remedies for official misconduct and civil rights redress.” Mot. for
Leave to Dismiss at 1.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
A district court must screen “a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a) (2012). The court must dismiss a complaint if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Id. § 1915A(b)(1). As with other civil
complaints, a prisoner’s complaint “must contain ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” De’lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520, 524 (4th
Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The court accepts the factual
allegations in the Complaint as true, draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the
plaintiff’s favor, and affords a liberal construction to the allegations of a pro se prisoner plaintiff.
Id. The court may dismiss the action sua sponte on the basis of an affirmative defense if that
defense is “apparent from the facts alleged in the complaint.” Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health
Servs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674, 682 (4th Cir. 2005).
II.
Immunity
Quasi-judicial officers, such as clerks of court, are entitled to absolute immunity from
suit when they act “in obedience to a judicial order or under the court’s direction.” McCray v.
State of Md., 456 F.2d 1, 5 (4th Cir. 1972); see Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C. Cir.
1993) (holding that clerks of the court are immune from suit for actions that are “basic and
integral” to the judicial function); Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416, 417-18 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding
the clerk of court to be absolutely immune for issuing an erroneous warrant pursuant to the
court’s order); see also Hamilton v. Murray, No. 15-2406, 2016 WL 2806039, at *1 (4th Cir.
4
May 13, 2016); Brown v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Md. Clerks Office, No. 88-7243, 1988
WL 131848 at *1 (4th Cir. Dec. 6, 1988). The transcript from the sentencing hearing attached to
the Complaint indicates that Judge Chasanow planned to instruct the Clerk to enter a Notice of
Appeal and Motion and Affidavit in Support for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis on behalf
of Saunders. The following day, Fosbrook did just that, and Judge Chasanow granted the
Motion. Because the Complaint and the documents attached to it indicate that Fosbrook acted at
the direction of Judge Chasanow, she is immune from suit. See McCray, 456 F.2d at 5. For the
same reason, Cannon, who was Fosbrook’s supervisor and whose only action was to respond to
Saunders that Fosbrook had acted at the direction of Judge Chasanow, also has immunity from
suit. The Complaint is thus dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Coleman v. Rock Hill
Mun. Court, 550 F. App’x 166, 166 (4th Cir. 2014) (affirming pre-service dismissal of a pro se
litigant’s claim against a judge based on absolute immunity); Oliver v. Braxton, No. 01-6957,
2001 WL 1242598, at *1 (4th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of a
prisoner’s complaint against a state magistrate because such officials have absolute immunity
from suit for acts performed in their judicial capacity).
III.
Motions
Saunders’s Motion for Notice of Errors on the Record argues that his Motion for
Reconsideration of the order transferring his case to the District of Maryland should have been
docketed and ruled upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The
Motion for Reconsideration asserted that Saunders could not get a fair hearing in the District of
Maryland because he was sentenced here and because he has other cases pending in this District
that have been allegedly delayed or ignored.
The Court now accepts the Motion for
Reconsideration for docketing and construes it as a motion to re-transfer the case back to the
5
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Saunders’s case, however, was
transferred because no defendants reside in the District of Columbia, and no relevant events
occurred in the District of Columbia, such that venue is not proper in that District. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b). Accordingly, Saunders’s Motion for Notice of Errors on the Record and his Motion
for Reconsideration are denied. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800,
819 (1988) (“Under law-of-the-case principles, if the transferee court can find the transfer
decision plausible, its jurisdictional inquiry is at an end.”); Allfirst Bank v. Progress Rail Servs.
Corp., 178 F. Supp. 2d 513, 517-19 (D. Md. 2001) (refusing to retransfer a case back to the court
in which it was filed where the decision to transfer was not “manifestly erroneous”).
As for Saunders’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Subject to Refiling an Amended
Complaint in D.C. Circuit, the Court construes this Motion as seeking leave to amend the
Complaint and to file the amended complaint with the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. Because that court has already determined correctly that venue is not
proper in that District, and the defendants in this case have immunity from suit for their official
acts taken at the direction of a judicial officer, any such filing would be futile. Consequently,
that Motion is denied.
Saunders is cautioned that once three of a prisoner’s civil actions have been dismissed as
malicious or frivolous or for failure to state a claim, that prisoner is unable to file another civil
action while incarcerated without paying the filing fee up front, unless he is “under imminent
danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Saunders’s Complaint is DISMISSED. The Motion for Notice
of Errors on the Record, ECF No. 6, the Motion for Reconsideration, which the court accepts for
6
docketing, and the Motion for Leave to Dismiss Without Prejudice Subject to Refiling an
Amended Complaint in D.C. Circuit, ECF No. 7, are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close
this case and to send a copy of this Memorandum Order to Saunders.
Date: August 16, 2016
/s/
THEODORE D. CHUANG
United States District Judge
7
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?