Lyons v. Hoppe

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER. Case Dismissed With Prejudice. Signed by Chief District Judge Martin K. Reidinger on 6/4/2024. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(jv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
June 04, 2024
LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK
HARRISONBURG DIVISION
BY: s/J.Vasquez
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:24-cv-00020-MKR

SAMUEL A. LYONS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOEL
C. HOPPE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court 1 on initial review of the Plaintiff's

Complaint [Doc. 1].
I.

BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Samuel A. Lyons ("Plaintiff") filed this action on April 1,

2024,

against

Defendant

U.S.

Magistrate

Judge

Joel

C.

Hoppe

("Defendant"). [Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff claims that Judge Hoppe violated his
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution by
issuing judgment against him without having jurisdiction.

[J..g_J

The Plaintiff

therefore brings a challenge to a previous order of Judge Hoppe dismissing

1

The undersigned was designated by the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals to hold a district court in the Western District of Virginia for such time needed to
resolve this matter. [Doc. 5].

a separate case previously brought by the Plaintiff. Lyons v. Ticer Greene,
No. 5:21-CV-00010, 2022 WL 2532460, at *13 (W.D. Va. July 7, 2022).
Judge Hoppe dismissed this prior action on the grounds that the Court lacked
personal jurisdiction over one Defendant, and the claim against the other
Defendant was time-barred.

11.

The Plaintiff now asks the Court to vacate

its previous Order because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
[Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff also moved to vacate judgment in Case No. No. 5:21CV-00010, and that motion remains pending.

Pro Se Notice of Judicial

Errors and Motion to Vacate Judgment, Lyons v. Ticer Greene, No. 5:21-CV00010 (W.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2024), ECF No. 38.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW,
Because the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, seeks to proceed in

forma pauperis, the Court must examine the pleadings to determine whether

this Court has jurisdiction and to ensure that the action is not frivolous or
malicious and states a claim upon which relief can be granted.

See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); see also Michau v. Charleston Cnty., 434
F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting that§ 1915(e) "governs IFP filings in
addition to complaints filed by prisoners"). A complaint is deemed frivolous
"where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

The Fourth Circuit has offered the following

2

guidance to a court tasked with determining whether a complaint is frivolous
under§ 1915(e):
The district court need not look beyond the
complaint's allegations in making such a
determination. It must, however, hold the pro se
complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint
liberally. Trial courts, however, are granted broad
discretion in determining whether a suit is frivolous or
malicious.
White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989). While the complaint
must be construed liberally, the Court may "pierce the veil of the complaint's
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
clearly baseless," including such claims that describe "fantastic or delusional
scenarios." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 328.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a]
pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction ... [and] (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1 ), (2). A complaint fails to state a claim where it offers
merely "labels and conclusions," "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action," or "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual
enhancement." See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell

3

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Ill.

DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff names as the Defendant Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe.
[Doc. 1].

Judges are immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial

immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1996) ("A judge is
absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of
authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors."); Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 419 (1976) (stating that judicial "immunity applies
even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it is
not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the
benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty
to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of
consequences") (internal quotations omitted).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim against Judge Hoppe is barred by
judicial immunity and is therefore dismissed with prejudice.

See, e.g.,

Galloway v. Davis, No. 23-1386, 2023 WL 4105708 (4th Cir. June 21, 2023)
(affirming dismissal with prejudice of a Bivens action under§ 1915(e)(2) as
barred by judicial immunity); Mills v. Marchant, No. 8:19-cv-1512-TMC-JDA,
2019 WL 2647600, at *2-3 (D.S.C. June 4, 2019), adopted, 2019 WL

4

2644216 (D.S.C. June 27, 2019) (noting that dismissal with prejudice is
proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 where claims against a judge are barred by
the doctrine of judicial immunity and therefore frivolous).
IV.

CONCLUSION

Because the only Defendant in this action is entitled to absolute
immunity, the Plaintiff's claim will be dismissed with prejudice. Should the
Plaintiff wish to challenge a prior order of this Court, he should do so through
the appropriate procedural avenues.

ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1]

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Entered: June 4, 2024

IN RE IN&
CHI F UNITED S ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Sitting by Designation

5