Lucas v. Collier-Williams et al
Filing
12
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/5/18 dismissing this action under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in goodfaith. (Related Doc. 1 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
---------------------------------------------------------:
CHARLES LUCAS,
: CASE NO. 1:18-CV-01461
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
: OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. No. 1]
HON. CASSANDRA COLLIER-WILLIAMS, :
ET AL,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff Charles Lucas filed this civil rights action against Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas Judge Cassandra Collier-Williams and Ohio Eighth District Court of
Appeals Judge Eileen Gallagher to challenge decisions they made in the course of his criminal
trial and interlocutory appeals. He asserts claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, and seeks monetary damages.
I. Background
Plaintiff was involved in several domestic violence incidents in Garfield Heights with
his former fiancé Kimberly Parker. He indicates Parker shot at him through the bedroom door.
She was arrested and charged with domestic violence and discharging a firearm in a dwelling.
He obtained a restraining order against her. She later accused him of shooting into her house.
Plaintiff was arrested and charged with attempted murder with firearm specifications, improper
discharging a firearm at or into a habitation with a firearm specification, felonious assault with a
firearm specification, and breaking and entering. A jury found him guilty of these charges on
January 22, 2018. He is waiting to be sentenced.
Plaintiff objects to decisions made by the Defendant Judges in the course of the criminal
proceedings against him. He contends he proved to Judge Collier-Williams that he did not
commit the crime and yet she failed to dismiss the charges against him. He claims she denied
all of his Motions and ordered him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine his
competence to stand trial. He indicates she issued a bench warrant when he failed to appear at a
pretrial hearing and ordered him to be jailed for one day as a sanction for violating curfew while
on probation. He denies he violated curfew. Plaintiff claims Judge Collier-Williams denied
him his right of self-representation, his right to speedy trial, and his right to procure witnesses to
testify on his behalf. Plaintiff claims Judge Gallagher denied his interlocutory appeals,
conspired with Collier-Williams to cover up his retained counsel’s attempt to extort fee payment
prior to trial, and denied his motions. He asserts claims for denial of access to the courts, due
process and cruel and unusual punishment.
II. Legal Standard
The Court is expressly authorized to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner seeking
relief from a government agent or governmental entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if
the Court concludes that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or if the Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a Defendant who is immune from such relief.1 A
cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it does not contain
1
28 U.S.C. §1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167 , at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000); see
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (citing numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that
attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest the district court of jurisdiction); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300
(6th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims).
2
enough facts to suggest Plaintiff has a plausible claim that entitles him to the relief he seeks. 2
This does not mean a Plaintiff is required to allege the facts of his Complaint in great detail, but
he still must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.”3 A Complaint that offers only legal conclusions or a simple listing of the elements
of a cause of action will not meet this standard.4 When reviewing the Complaint under §
1915A, the Court must read it in a way that is the most favorable to the Plaintiff. 5
III. Analysis
In this case, Plaintiff is suing two Judges and they are absolutely immune from civil suits
for money damages.6 They are accorded this broad protection to ensure that the independent
and impartial exercise of their judgment in a case is not impaired by the exposure to damages by
dissatisfied litigants.7 For this reason, absolute immunity is overcome only in two situations: (1)
when the conduct alleged is performed at a time when the Defendant is not acting as a judge; or
(2) when the conduct alleged, although judicial in nature, is taken in complete absence of all
subject matter jurisdiction of the court over which he or she presides.8 A judge will be not
deprived of immunity even if the action he or she took was performed in error, done
maliciously, or was in excess of his or her authority.9 Here, Plaintiff bases his claims on
conduct the Defendants performed when they acting as judges and pertained to matters within
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009).
Id. at 678.
Id.
Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991); Barnes v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111, 1115 (6th Cir. 1997).
Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1115.
Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12; Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1116.
Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-57.
3
the subject matter jurisdiction of their respective courts. They therefore are entitled to absolute
immunity.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith.10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2018
10
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in
good faith.
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?