Hawkins v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 09/16/2016. Copy mailed to Plaintiff on 9/16/2016.(tjoh, )

IP
p

L.

•:

-

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

HAWKINS,

RICHMOf-i-: V/,''

SR.

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.

V.

CITY OF RICHMOND,

3:16cv216

et al. ,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This

matter

TO DISMISS

is

before

PURSUANT

TO RULE

the City of Richmond,
TO RULE

Police

12(b) (6)

Court

on

12(b)(6)

Earl

33),

the

DEFENDANT'S

(Docket

the DEFENDANTS'

(Docket No.

Department,

Mocello,

the

No.

R.L.

the AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS

Gary

Woolbridge,

COMPLAINT
reasons

TO

RULE

DISMISS

(Docket

stated below,

12(b)(6)

of

TO

Richmond

Woolbridge,

TO

will

on

42),
the

(Docket

PURSUANT

AMENDED MOTION

City

No.

and

RULE

DISMISS

Jamison,

(Docket No.

MOTION

filed

by

15),

FOR

the

the

12(b)(6)

(Docket

granted,

No.

and
37),

LEAVE

DISMISS

No.

37),

filed

the MOTION

filed by

PURSUANT

and

TO
the

Defendants

Bishop,

FOR

the

MOTION

33),

by

AMEND

For

DEFENDANTS'

Martesha

Michael

TO

Plaintiff.

(Docket

Office,
and

by

Martesha Bishop,

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

Magistrate
be

the

No.

filed

MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT

Defendants City of Richmond Magistrate Office,
and

15),

MOTION

filed by the City of Richmond

Fernandez,

1i.i

CLERK, U.S DiSTRirr

Richmond Division

RONALD E.

16

u

LEAVE

and

Gary

TO AMEND

Jr.

COMPLAINT

(Docket

No.

42),

filed

by

the

Plaintiff,

will

be

denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff

Ronald

on August

29,

when

officers,

two

(''Jamison") ,

2014,

Plaintiff's

(''Hawkins")

not

officer.

one

unnamed

and

one

named

(Compl.

produce

a

13-20,

warrant

(Compl.

Earl

unnamed

Officer

H

or

Docket

inform

girl

Michael

Fernandez

partner

Hawkins

and

would

be

showing

"cleared"

[about]

incriminate

the

and also

himself

to

girl

gun,

it

(Compl.

prove

The

of

the

of

a

could

H

30-37).

the

that

be

he

to

didn't

shoot

a

unnamed

insinuated

was

have

produce

an

determined

charge,

to

23-29).

selling

Hawkins,

an

21-22).

(Compl.

and

and

to

alleged

declined

about

if

nature

the

Jamison

Hawkins

is

Hawkins

that

for
3).

Hawkins

(Compl.

("Mocello")

room,

questioned

gun had not been fired.

misled

Jamison

No.

("Fernandez"),

transported

Mocello

interrogation

allegedly

drugs

that

16-20). With the assistance of a

warrant or state the charges against Hawkins.

Mocello

R.L.

"a warrant downtown

interrogation room in a police department.

entered the

alleges

he was on the porch at his mother's house

arrest."

did

Jamison's

Sr.

because there was

charges against him.
third

Hawkins,

approached and informed Hawkins that he would "have

to go with them"

officers

E.

that

that
this

"after being

compelled

to

anyone,"

in

the

process

''giving

[away the]

location

aware of belonging to his brother."

Although Hawkins

fact,

sought

However,

and

Hawkins

insufficient
[Hawkins]

officer

of

not

obtained

argues

to

had

was

that

establish

committed

reasonable

for

facts

Hawkins's

cause

offense,"

(Compl.

would

SI 81).

to

omitting

information

finding of probable cause.
Magistrate

Judge

Martesha

with Mocello to issue this warrant.
After

that

the

the

firearm

was

SI

charge

against

him was

convicted felon.

(Compl.

SI 38).

That

yet

day,

October

8,

controlled

returned an

however,

(Compl.

2014,

charging

substance,

and

attempting to distribute a

"no

that

deliberately,

or

to

the

alleges

that

acted

in

concert

informed

Hawkins

SI 82) .

Mocello

of

a

firearm

by

a

That charge was nolle prosequi'd

was
him
(2)

that

concluded

Hawkins

possession

unspecified

Hawkins

were

that

material

("Bishop")

by the City of Richmond on October 9,
had not

was

83) .

retrieved,

in

Hawkins further alleges

which

(Compl.
Bishop

was

arrest.

believe
and

have

that Mocello obtained the warrant by knowingly,

recklessly

he

and circumstances

criminal

a

that

Mocello had,

probable

competence

probable cause existed."

gun

warrant,

warrant

''the

a

(Compl. SI 37).

shown a

a

of

2014 because a
report.

shown
with

(Compl.

two
(1)

possession

laboratory
SISI

42-49).

indictments

dated

distribution
of

a

controlled substance.

of

firearm

(Compl.

a

while

SI

50).

Hawkins alleges that the evidence supporting the indictments was

taken from the August 29,
November

5,

2014,

charge"

that

had

(Compl.

SI 52).

2014 interrogation.

Hawkins

been

was

nolle

indicted

(Compl.

""on

prosequi^d

the

on

i

51) .

same

October

On

firearm

9,

2014.

The evidence supporting that indictment was also

allegedly taken from the August 29,

2014

interrogation.

(Compl.

II 52) .

Following the October and November indictments,

represented by Christopher Bradshaw
57).

Hawkins

(Compl.

and

Bradshaw

SISI 57-60).

to suppress,
attorney
frivolous.

disagreed

Particularly,

while Bradshaw,

Davis

Powell,

(Compl.

SI1I

C'Bradshaw") .
on

Hawkins was

(Compl.

litigation

SISl 53-

strategy.

Hawkins wanted to file a motion

after discussions with prosecuting

believed

60-65,

such

72-77).

On

a

motion

April

3,

would
2015,

be

Judge

Bradford Cavedo allowed Hawkins to change counsel,

and appointed

David

61-65).

P.

Cavedo

Baugh as
recused

Hawkins's

himself

attorney.

from

Hawkins's

transferred to Judge Beverly Snukals.
A

suppression

(Compl.

SISI

77-78) .

hearing

was

Hawkins

(Compl.
case

which

Judge

was

then

(Compl. Sli 66) .

scheduled

''wanted

SISI

to

in
go

Hawkins's
forward

case.

with

the

hearing," but received ''a message through his attorney David P.
Baugh

from

Plaintiff
(Compl.
not

SISI

a

to

Richmond
accept

79).

the

''Hawkins

Police
plea
felt

Office[r]
deal"

which

Fernandez
was

intimidated and

being

felt

informing
offered.

that

he

was

receiving Due Process and had no other choice but to take a

[p]lea

deal."

distribution

(Compl.

of

80).

cocaine

in

Hawkins

violation

of

was

and sentenced to ten years of incarceration,
three

months

suspended

for time served.

Hawkins

for

a

(Docket No.

filed

this

period

35-1,

action

against the City of Richmond
Police

Department

(''the

police

officers

official

Mocello,

capacities

("the

pro

§

of

18.2-248(c)

with nine years and

ten

years,

with

credit

1).

se

and

("the City");

Police

Richmond's Magistrate Office

of

Ex.

Code

Va.

convicted

in

forma

pauperis

the City of Richmond

Department") ;

the

City

(''the Magistrate Office");

Fernandez,

and

individual

Jamison

officers");

of

Richmond

in

and

their

Richmond

Magistrate Judge Martesha Bishop and Chief Magistrate Judge Gary
Woolbridge

("the

Magistrate

Judges"),

also

capacities.

Plaintiff presents six claims:

in

(1)

their

Count One alleges

that Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause;
of

the

Fourth

and

Fourteenth Amendments;

malicious prosecution;
false

imprisonment;

Process,

alleges

in

and

right

Equal

Amendment.

of

Count
the

Four

Fifth

(6)

alleges

Amendment;

Hawkins

seeks

in

false

arrest and

denial
(5)

alleges

of

Count

Due
Five

Sixth

violation of plaintiff's

violation

declaratory

unspecified equitable relief,

Two

in violation of the

Count Six alleges a
Protection,

in violation

Count

Count Three alleges

of effective counsel,

Amendment;
to

(4)

violation

denial

(3)

(2)

official

and

of

the

Fourteenth

injunctive

and compensatory damages.

relief,

Between

June

filed motions

2016,
to

to

8,

2016

dismiss.

and

June

24,

(Docket Nos.

2016,

15,

33,

all
37).

Defendants
On June

30,

Hawkins filed a motion for an extension of time to respond

these

motions.

No.

40).

On

July

1,

Hawkins's

granted

(Docket

request

and

ordered

that

Hawkins

motions

by

responses
Rather

to

than

the
file

a

reply,

amend his Complaint.

July

26,

Hawkins

(Docket No.

2016.

filed

42).

a

2016,

the

submit

(Docket

motion

Court

No.

for

his
41) .

leave

to

Defendants have not filed

responses to Hawkins's motion for leave to amend.
LEGAL

In

all

dismiss

civil

under

sufficiency
Corp.,
to

Fed.

of

a

dismiss

(4th

2009) .

Cir.

pleader's
can

accept

Old

338

v.

be

P.

otherwise,

12(b) (6)

v.

a

motion

challenges

the

Alternative

favor

a

of

court

the

must

Inc.,

591

However,

court

'Mraw

''will

while

what

drawn

facts."

Charles

Practice and Procedure

Co.,

L.L.C.,

the

happened"
therefrom,"

and
the

encompassing the
A.
§

legal

Resources

plaintiff."

Consumeraffairs.com,

of

to

2006). When deciding a motion

12(b)(6),

in

reasonably

Sec.

or

Jordan

conclusory allegations

Dominion

se

{4th Cir.

Rule

description

pleaded

Federal

Civ.

inferences
Ltd.

pro

complaint.

under

Chevrolet,

the

R.

458 F.3d 332,

reasonable

that

cases,

STANDARD

Wright
1357

No.

(3d

&

F.3d

ed.l998);

3:13CV820,

2014

250,

253

the

conclusions

court

Arthur

Nemet

accept

""any

legal

all

""need

effects
R.

not

of

Miller,

Chamblee

v.

WL 1415095,

*4

a

(E.D.

Va.

legal

The court is not required to accept as true

conclusion

556 U.S.

As

2014).

at

a

unsupported

by

factual

threshold matter,

e.g.,

omitted);

Erickson v,
Gordon v.

Nevertheless,

vision for

the Court

Pardus,

Leeke,

recognizes

for
WL

551 U.S.

574

89,

F.2d 1147,

(2007)

1151

(citations

{4th Cir.

1978).

recognize Rule

8's

allow for the preparation of a basic

at

*2

F.R.D.

of

(E.D.

Va.

26,

(S.D.N.Y.

construction ''does not mean that

Sewraz

v.

Guice,

(quoting

1972)).

The

2008

Prezzi

v.

requirement of

the court

can ignore a

in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a

claim cognizable

in

a

2009 WL 2191981,

at

*2

of Soc.

Servs.,

Fed.

R.

federal
(D.S.C.

July 16,

901 F.2d 387

Civ.

pleading

district

P.

only

with

when justice so requires."
when

the

court."
2009)

(4th Cir.

15(a) (2)

consent or the court's leave.

only

and provide a means

2008)

liberal

its

151

Aug.

57

clear failure

149,

sham claims.'"

Berzak,

denied

94

narrow the issues to be litigated,

3926443,

amend

Hawkins's

^a system of simplified pleadings that give notice of

quick dispositions

Dept.

that

liberal construction.

''[e]ven pro se plaintiffs must

the general claim asserted,
defense,

Iqbal,

678-79.

pro se status entitles his pleadings to a
See,

allegations.

the

provides

Skelton v.

EPA,

(citing Weller v.

1990)).

that

opposing

''a

party

party's

may

written

The court should freely give leave

"Leave to amend a pleading should be

amendment

would

be

prejudicial

to

the

opposing
moving

party,

there

party,

or

has

the

been

Dep't of Justice,

*1

Aug.

Cir.

404,

426

(4th

178,

182

(1962) .

appear
the

to

be

motions

3,

Cir.

at
to

2016)

2006));

At

this

issue.

is

given

the

necessary

the

futile."
at

Harvey,

438

F.3d

Davis,

371

U.S.

v.

nor bad

issues

to

of

2016 WL 4120669,

v.

Foman

part

been

neither prejudice

However,
it

Laber

also

the

have

16-6085,

(quoting
see

on

would

No.

time,

dismiss,

amendment would be

faith

amendment

Djenasevic v.

(4th

bad

faith

presented by

assess

whether

any

futile.

ANALYSIS

OF LAW

The claims asserted by Hawkins in the Complaint are clearly

barred

by

judicial

immunity,

municipal

liability under

Humphrey,

512 U.S.

must

be

futile,

granted.

477,

For

§

487

the

the

1983,
(1994).

same

limitations

and the
Thus,

reasons,

on

doctrine

vicarious

of

Heck v.

the motions to dismiss

any

amendment

would

be

necessitating denial of the motion for leave to file an

amended complaint.
A.
Claims Against
Magistrate
Judges'
Judicial Immunity

the Magistrate
Judges
and the
Office
Are
Clearly
Barred
by

It is beyond dispute that judicial officers may not be held
liable for

within
543

an award of money damages

their

(1984);

jurisdiction.
Pressly

v.

See

so long as

Pulliam v.

Gregory^
8

831

F.2d

Allen^
514,

they have acted

466
517

U.S.

522,

(4th

Cir.

1987)

(^'As

absolute

judicial

immunity

officers,
for

capacity.");

Murphy v.

*3

Apr.

(E.D.

There

Va.

is

also

officers, Va.

no

acts

Ross,

15,

magistrates

2015)

performed

No.

are

in

3:14CV870,

entitled

their

to

judicial

2015 WL 1787351,

at

(collecting circuit court opinions).

question

Code § 19.2-119

that

magistrates

are

(''Vudicial officer'

or that a

state magistrate has authority and jurisdiction under
to

issue

search

warrants,

Va.

the

unless

indicated,

law

serving

means,

otherwise

state

any magistrate

judicial

jurisdiction''),

Code

magistrate shall have the following powers

...

§

To

19.2-45

(''A

issue search

warrants in accord with the provisions of §§ 19.2-52 to 19.2-60
of the Code[.]").

Judicial

immunity

"is

vitiated

only

when

the

judicial

officer acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." Pressly^

831 F.2d at 517

(citing Stump v.

The fact

judicial officer has acted erroneously does not

mean

that a

that

Griffin

the

v.

(W.D.N.C.

judge

judicial

Thornburg^

June 19,

will

not

be

Sparkman^ 435 U.S.

officer has
No.

2008).

acted without

1:08CV222,

2008

WL

349

(1978)).

jurisdiction.

2512901,

at

The Supreme Court explained that

deprived

of

immunity

took was in error,, was done maliciously,

because

the

*4

''[a]

action

he

or was in excess of his

authority;

rather,

he will be subject to liability only when he

has

acted

in

'clear

435

U.S.

at

the

356-5.

absence

of

all

jurisdiction.'"

Stump^

"A judge is absolutely immune from liability

for

his

flawed
359.

judicial
by

the

Instead,

''dealt

with

Because

acts

even

commission

of

the relevant

the

judge

Magistrate

his

grave

his

-

she

acted

of

procedural

judicial

Bishop

authority

errors."

within

capacity."

performed

performed by a magistrate in her
warrant

exercise

Id.

is
at

inquiry relates to whether the party

in

Judge

if

a

Id.

function

judicial capacity -

his

at

jurisdiction

362.

normally

issuing a

regardless

of

whether any errors attended the exercise of this jurisdiction.
With

judicial

immunity

serving as

such a

broad

shield for

Magistrate Judge Bishop's actions in issuing the arrest warrant,

there is no plausible construction of the Complaint under which
relief
state

it

can
a

is

be

granted.

claim against

equally

Magistrate

impossible

her alleged supervisor.
employer.
37),

Therefore,

filed

Martesha

Additionally,

by

for

claims against

and

Judge

Hawkins

Bishop

to

state

Hawkins
for

a

her

cannot
actions,

claim against

Chief Magistrate Judge Woolridge,

the AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants

Bishop,

because

City

of

Richmond

Gary Woolbridge,

will

(Docket

Magistrate
be

or her

Office,

granted,

the City of Richmond Magistrate Office,

No.

and

all

Martesha

Bishop, and Gary Woolbridge, will be dismissed.
There

is

no

amendment

that

Hawkins

might

make

that

could

state a viable claim for relief against Magistrate Judge Bishop.
Leave

to

amend

the

would

accordingly

be

Complaint
futile.

against

Magistrate

Therefore,
10

Hawkins's

Judge

Bishop

motion

for

leave to amend will be denied as it pertains to Magistrate Judge
Bishop,

Chief

Richmond

Magistrate

Magistrate's

Judge

Office

Woolrich,

or

any

and

the

reasonably

City

of

equivalent

entity.^
B.
Claims Against the City of Richmond and the City
of Richmond Police Department are Clearly Barred by
Limitations on Vicarious Liability of Municipalities

Hawkins's

City

is

predicated

respondeat
Monell V.

(1978) .

where

claim

superior

upon

a

that

the

Mitchell,

or

custom

F.

Supp.

2d

a

U.S.C.

of

§

1983

vicarious

legally

municipal

or

causes

a

statutory

615,

629

658,

deprivation

Va.

694

only

undertaken

an

of

the

Brown

rights."

(E.D.

or

theory.

436 U.S.

has

the

liability

liability arises

municipality/

which

against

cognizable

Of City of N.Y.^

qua

constitutional

327

not

''under Monell^

policy

42

theory

Serv.

municipality,

plaintiff's

to

is

Dep't of Soc.

However,

official

pursuant

v.

2004).

Thus,

in

order to state a claim against the City,

Hawkins must set forth

a

finding

sufficient

City had

a

deprivation
violated;

factual

basis

policy or
of

and

the
(2)

to

support

custom of deliberate

constitutional

this

a

policy or

right

that:

indifference

alleged

custom caused,

to
or

(1)

the

to

the

have

been

contributed

^ Defendants state that "there is no such legal entity entitled
^City of Richmond Magistrate's Office," and that magistrates are
instead supervised by the Office of the Executive Secretary.
(Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mtn. to Dismiss, Docket No. 25, 11).
Because Hawkins cannot state a claim against Magistrate Judge
Bishop's employer, whoever that employer is, the Court will not
discuss

the matter

further.
11

to

cause,

F.

Supp.

Tuttle^

the

67,

complained of

75

471

(E.D.

U.S.

Independence^

Va.

808,

445 U.S.

injury.

1995)

823

Westmoreland

Brown,

883

(citing City of Oklahoma City v.

(1985));

622,

v.

see

also

Owen

v.

City

of

(1980).

Hawkins has not pled the existence of any policy that would
entitle

him

Therefore,

to

pursue

Hawkins's

a

claim

claims

based

against

on

the

municipal

City must

liability.

be

dismissed

as legally insufficient.

Moreover,

the

plausible

basis

would

viable

be

dismiss

will

be

for

Complaint

makes

amendment

under

that

Monell.

clear
would

Thus,

that
state

the

granted and the motion

for

there
a

City's

leave

is

claim
motions

no
that
to

to amend will

be denied.

The
fail

claims

under

the

against
same

the

analysis

City of
because

Richmond
the

Police

Police

Department

Department

for the purposes of a suit against it, a part of the City.
'"In Virginia,
an operating division of a
governmental entity cannot be sued unless
the
legislature has vested the
operating
division
with
the
capacity
to
be
sued." Muniz
v.
Fairfax
Pep't. No. 1:05CV466 (JCC),

at
V.

County
Police
2005 WL 1838326,

*2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2005) (citing Davis
City of
Portsmouth^ 579
F.Supp.
1205,

1210

(E.D.

(4th

Cir.

Va.

1983),

1984)).

aff'd,
The

742

F.2d

[Richmond

1448

Police

Department] has not been vested with such a
capacity. Dance v. City of Richmond Police
Dep't. No. 3:09CV423 (HEH), 2009 WL 2877152,
at *4
(E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2009). The Court
will therefore treat all claims against the
12

is,

City
Burnley

(E.D.

v.

and

Norwood,

Va.

Aug.

Police

RPD

No.

4,

dismissal against

the

the

as

against

3:10CV264-HEH,

2010).

The

the

City

2010

only.

WL 3063779,

principles

which

at

would

*5

make

the City of Richmond inevitable also apply to

Department,

and that

inevitability renders

amendment

against the Police Department futile.
For

DISMISS

the

foregoing

PURSUANT

Defendants

City

R.L.

Jamison,

that

it

TO
of

RULE

reasons,

the

12(b)(6)

Richmond

seeks

a

dismissal

(Docket

Police

and Michael Mocello,

DEFENDANTS'

No.

Department,

MOTION

33),
Earl

filed

TO

by

Fernandez,

will be granted to the extent

against

the

City

of

Richmond

Police

Department,^ and all claims against the City of Richmond Police
Department will be dismissed with prejudice.
C.
V.

Finally,

Claims Against All Defendants are Barred by Heck
Humphrey

to

the

extent

that

Hawkins

intended

to

assert

a

claim for a defect in his legal proceedings that would implicate
the

validity of

his

confinement,

those

claims

are barred as

to

all Defendants^ by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 487.

^ Claims against the individual officers will be assessed and
dismissed in the following section.

^ The

Court notes that claims against the

individual officers

would
face
the
additional
hurdle
of
overcoming
qualified
immunity. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); see
also Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232
(2009); Henry v.
Purnell,
501
F.3d
374,
376-78
(4th
Cir.2007);
Danjczek v.
Spencer, 156 F. Supp. 3d 739, 744 (E.D. Va. 2016).
13

[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,
or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness

would

render

a

conviction

or

sentence
invalid, a
§ 1983 plaintiff
must
prove that the conviction or sentence has
been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal

authorized

determination,
federal

or

court's

corpus,
damages

to

called

issuance

make

into
of

a

such

question
writ

of

by

a

habeas

28 U.S.C. § 2254.
A
claim
for
bearing
that
relationship
to
a

conviction

or

sentence

that

has

not

been

so

invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.
Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in
a

§

1983 suit,

the

district

court

must

consider whether a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff
would
necessarily
imply
the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if
it would, the complaint must be dismissed
unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that
the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated.

Heck,

any

512 U.S.

form

of

at

486-87.

relief

The Supreme Court

that

implicates

the

reads Heck to cover

constitutionality

of

criminal procedures related to a plaintiff's criminal case.
[A] state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred
(absent prior invalidation) — no matter the
relief sought (damages or equitable relief),
no matter the target of the prisoner's suit
(state
conduct
leading
to
conviction
or

internal prison proceedings)
that
the

— ^

success in

action
would
necessarily demonstrate
invalidity
of
confinement
or
its

duration.

Wilkinson

Griffin
2015);

v.

v.

Dotson,

Bait.

Via v.

544

Police

Fahey,

No.

U.S.

74,

Dep't,
CIV.A.

81-82

804

(2005);

F.3d

3:07CV778,

14

692,

see

697

also,

(4th

2009 WL 223113,

e.g..

Cir.
at

*2

(E.D.

Va.

Jan.

termination
at 486-87;
a

29,

encompasses:

requirement

malicious

e.g..

ineffective

Driscoll,

The

prosecution.

of

favorable

Heck,

512

No.

Miller,

assistance

CIV.A.

475

of

98-1449-AM,

Va. Apr. 18, 2002), aff'd,

F.3d at

627-28

counsel,

2002

WL

e.g.,

31962249,

46 F. App'x 724

(4th Cir.
Blaney

at

*2

admission,

Hawkins

pled

guilty.

v.

(E.D.

(4th Cir. 2002).

Hawkins's proceedings were not favorably terminated.
own

U.S.

false imprisonment and false imprisonment pursuant to

deficient warrant,

2007);

2009).

(Compl.

^

By his

80).This means

that Hawkins cannot state a claim for any form of relief against

any Defendants, and all such claims must be dismissed.
Moreover,

require

dismissal

amendment
P.

there

is

is

no

under

possible

28

amendment

U.S.C.

§

that

would

1915(e) (2) (i) .

futile and accordingly improper under Fed.

not

Thus,
R.

Civ.

15(a)(2).

For

the

DISMISS

PURSUANT

DEFENDANTS'

No.
Earl

33) ,

RULE

TO

DISMISS

the

12(b)(6)

DEFENDANT'S
(Docket

PURSUANT

TO

RULE

MOTION

No.

15),

12(b)(6)

TO
the

(Docket

filed by Defendants City of Richmond Police Department,

Fernandez,

of

reasons,

TO

MOTION

AMENDED MOTION

City

foregoing

R.L.

TO

Richmond

^ Hawkins

appears

Jamison,

DISMISS

(Docket

Magistrate

to

presently incarcerated.

be

and

E.g.,

No.

Office,

under

a

Michael

37),

filed

Martesha

suspended

Docket No.
15

Mocello,

35,

by

and

Defendants

Bishop,

sentence,
Ex.

1.

the

and

but

Gary

not

Woolbridge,

will

be

granted,

and

all

claims

against

all

Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For

the

DISMISS

PURSUANT

DEFENDANTS'

No.

reasons

33),

MOTION

and

the

stated

above,

TO

RULE

TO

DISMISS

AMENDED

the

12(b)(6)

(Docket

PURSUANT

MOTION

TO

DEFENDANT'S

TO

RULE

DISMISS

MOTION

No.

15),

12(b)(6)

(Docket

TO
the

(Docket

No.

37),

filed by Defendants City of Richmond Magistrate Office, Martesha
Bishop,
all

and Gary Woolbridge,

will be granted. All claims against

Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice.

LEAVE

TO

Plaintiff,

IT

IS

AMEND

COMPLAINT

(Docket

No.

42),

The MOTION

FOR

filed

the

by

will be denied.

SO

ORDERED

Robert E.

/s/
Payne

mi-

Senior United States District Judge
Richmond,

Virginia

Date: September ^ , 2016

16