Mate v. Hampton et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 6/26/12. (lvw1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Winner Dawan Mate,

:

Plaintiff

:
:

Thomas Hampton, et al.,
Defendants.

Judge Smith

:

v.

Civil Action 2:12-cv-426

Magistrate Judge Abel

:

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action on May 17, 2012 against Defendants Thomas
Hampton and the Hon. Edmund Sargus Jr., alleging that they conspired to violate
his civil rights and to commit other wrongdoing in connection with Shanda Mathis

on behalf of Dawan Mate v. Commissioner of Social Security, Southern District of
Ohio Case No. 2:10-cv-0668. This Social Security case was originally filed by
Shanda Mathis on behalf of Dawan Mate, a person allegedly not competent to act
on his own behalf due to chronic mental illness and traumatic brain injury. As Ms.
Mathis is not an attorney and cannot represent Dawan Mate, the Court – at Ms.
Mathis’ request – appointed Mr. Hampton, an attorney, to represent him.
In this action, Dawan Mate (here styled Winner Dawan Mate) now alleges
that Judge Sargus failed to perform his official duties by granting numerous
extensions to the Commissioner, conspired with Mr. Hampton to deny him certain
relief, and failed to timely rule in his favor on the underlying controversy. The

Social Security case was terminated when the parties stipulated to remand the
matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings, including further development
of the record and a new hearing. (Case No. 10-cv-668, Doc. 47.) Here, however,
Plaintiff argues that Mr. Hampton refused to move for a default judgment, and that
Judge Sargus in essence connived with him to prevent him from being awarded
benefits outright.
In the initial screening Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that this action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) on grounds
that it is merely an attempt to relitigate Plaintiff’s Social Security appeal, that
Plaintiff’s sole remedy is to appeal the final judgment in this case, that defendant
Sargus is immune from suit for actions taken as a judge in a lawsuit, and that
defendant Hampton was not acting under color of law and is not alleged to have
taken any actions giving rise to a cognizable claim.
This matter is now before the District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(B) on Plaintiff’s May 31, 2012 Objections (Doc. 4). Plaintiff argues that
this action is independent in that it alleges wrongdoing by a federal judge in a
proceeding rather than a failure to pay benefits, that a judge does not enjoy judicial
immunity when he acts without jurisdiction, and that private persons are acting
under color of law where they conspire with government officials to violate an
individual’s civil rights.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is well taken.
Plaintiff’s central argument appears to be that he was denied benefits because Mr.
2

Hampton should simply have filed a motion for default judgment and thus
prevailed against the Commissioner, instead of stipulating to remand the matter.
In the first place, as the Magistrate Judge pointed out, a default judgment cannot
be had against the Commissioner of Social Security. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g); Poe v.

Matthews, 572 F.2d 137, 138 (1978). In the second place, a cursory examination of
the docket of that case indicates that the Commissioner timely answered Plaintiff’s
complaint. See Case No. 10-cv-668, Doc. 15 (answer by Commissioner of Social
Security, following scheduling order in Doc. 5 and extensions of time granted in
Docs. 10, 12). Accordingly, Plaintiff could not have had a default judgment whether
or not Mr. Hampton attempted to obtain one. This failure to move for a default
judgment is the sole actual allegation of alleged misconduct or malpractice on the
part of Mr. Hampton. Even were he found to have acted under color of law – an
allegation unsupported by anything other than vague suggestions of conspiracy
with the presiding judge – Plaintiff has not pled that Mr. Hampton deliberately or
negligently failed to take any action at all which an attorney might have properly
performed, and has thus failed to state a claim against him upon which relief can
be granted.
Furthermore, as the Magistrate Judge also pointed out, a judge is immune
from suit for actions taken as a lawsuit, even erroneous or malicious actions, unless
he acts in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
356-57 (1978). The district courts of the United States have jurisdiction to hear
appeals from final decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C.
3

§405(g). Thus, Defendant Sargus is immune from suit for actions he took while
presiding over Plaintiff’s Social Security proceeding.
As Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Hampton
under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Defendant Sargus is immune from suit, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is hereby ORDERED
that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

s/ George C. Smith
United States District Judge

4