Martin v. Newton et al

Filing 5

OPINION and ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Kirby Martin DISMISSING the claims against Judge Martha Newton; DISMISSING the remaining state law claims without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 4/9/13. (sfla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON DIVISION

Kirby Martin,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Martha D. Newton, Anderson County
Probate Judge, and James L. Martin,
Conservator.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 8:13-894-HMH

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on sua sponte review of whether the claims against Martha
D. Newton, Anderson County Probate Judge (“Judge Newton”) are barred by the doctrine of
judicial immunity. Although the defense of absolute judicial immunity has not been raised, the
court may do so sua sponte. Arebaugh v. Dalton, 600 F. Supp. 1345, 1349 n.4 (E.D. Va. 1985).
The Plaintiff, Kirby Martin (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint in this court on April 3, 2013, alleging
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution and a claim for violation of the South Carolina Constitution, Article I, § 10
against Judge Newton. Further, the Plaintiff alleges state law claims of negligence and
recklessness against Judge Newton. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges state law claims for gross
negligence, recklessness, conversion, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a
fraudulent act, and promissory estoppel against James L. Martin, Conservator (“J. Martin”).
With respect to the § 1983 claim and violation of the South Carolina Constitution, Article
I, § 10 claim, the Plaintiff alleges in pertinent part as follows:
1

25.

26.

27.

28.

From January 18, 2001 to August 19, 2005, Defendant Martha J. Newton
authorized James L. Martin to take twenty-four thousand, two hundred
sixty-eight and no/l 00 ($24,268.00) from minor Kirby Martin’s
Conservatorship for his own, personal benefit. Her authorization, under
color of law, constituted an unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff’s effects in
violation of the U.S. CONST. amend IV, as well as S.C. CONST. art. I,
§10;
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Martha J. Newton’s conduct,
Plaintiff is being deprived of her rights, privileges, and immunities secured
by U. S. CONST. amend IV, and by S.C. CONST. art. I, §10;
In the course of authorizing loans and unreasonable seizures of Plaintiff’s
effects, Defendant Martha J. Newton acted with deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff Kirby Martin’s constitutional rights;
No reasonable judicial officer could have believed that Defendant Martha J.
Newton’s authorization of the unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff’s effects
comported with U.S. CONST. amend IV, or with S.C. CONST. art. I, § 10,
in light of the clearly established legal rules for judicial conduct.

(Compl. ¶¶ 25-28, ECF No. 1.) Further, the Plaintiff’s negligence and recklessness claim against
Judge Newton alleges that she failed to “exercise due care in regards to Plaintiff’s
Conservatorship” and “breached her duties in a reckless and grossly negligent manner by
approving loans to James L. Martin consisting of money contained in Plaintiff’s Conservatorship
account.” (Id. ¶¶ 30, 32.) All of Judge Newton’s actions complained of by the Plaintiff concern
Judge Newton’s authorizations of disbursements from a conservatorship account for the benefit
of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff concedes that in making these disbursements that Judge Newton
was “acting in her capacity as Anderson County Probate Judge.” (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.)
The court finds that the claims alleged against Judge Newton cannot proceed because she
is afforded absolute judicial immunity with respect to her judicial acts. Chu v. Griffith, 771 F.2d
79, 81 (4th Cir. 1985) (“It has long been settled that a judge is absolutely immune from a claim
for damages arising out of his judicial actions.”). “A judge is absolutely immune from liability
for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave
2

procedural errors.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). Absolute immunity “is an
immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,
526 (1985). Based on the foregoing, the claims against Judge Newton are dismissed.
The basis for federal jurisdiction alleged in the complaint is the § 1983 claim against
Judge Newton. (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) The court does not have original jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims in the complaint. Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), the district court may
decline supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction.” “[U]nder the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), authorizing a federal court
to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a district court has inherent power to dismiss the
case or, in cases removed from State court, to remand, provided the conditions set forth in
§ 1367(c) for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction have been met.” Hinson v. Norwest
Fin. S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 617 (4th Cir. 2001). Because dismissing the § 1983 claim removes
the sole federal claim and basis for original jurisdiction, the court finds that dismissal of the
instant case is warranted. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726
(1966) (“Needless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to
promote justice between the parties . . . . Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before
trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed
as well.”). Based on the foregoing, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the remaining state law claims.1
1

28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (“The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection
(a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as
or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending
and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling
period.”).
3

Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, the violation of the South Carolina
Constitution, Article 1, § 10 claim, and the negligence and recklessness claim against Judge
Newton are dismissed. It is further
ORDERED that the remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
April 9, 2013

4