Jones v. Broadhurst

Filing 10

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 10/22/2014. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
OWAIIAN M. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM D. BROADHURST,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:14CV00500
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Owaiian Jones, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Owaiian Jones, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action
against a state court judge. Jones requests one million dollars in “compensatory
and punitive damages” because the judge dismissed a case he had filed in the state
court. Given the nature of Jones’ claims, the court construed and docketed Jones’
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After reviewing the complaint, I conclude that
this lawsuit must be summarily dismissed as frivolous.
The court must dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner against a
governmental entity or officer if the court determines the action or claim is
“frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). A “frivolous” claim is one that “lacks an arguable basis

either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989)
(interpreting “frivolous” in former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)).
Judges are absolutely immune from suits under § 1983 for acts committed
within their judicial discretion.1 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978).
This immunity applies even if “the action [they] took was in error, was done
maliciously, or was in excess of [their] authority.” Id. at 356.
My statutory authority to summarily dismiss frivolous complaints includes
“the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327-28. Jones’ claims in this lawsuit are clearly baseless and, accordingly,
I will summarily dismiss the action under § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous. 2

1

Only two exceptions apply to judicial immunity: (1) nonjudicial actions, and (2)
those actions, “though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (citation omitted). Neither
exception applies to Jones’ allegations in this instance.
2

I note that Jones has filed 25 civil actions in this court since July 10, 2014. See
Case Nos. 7:14cv337, 7:14cv399, 7:14cv408, 7:14cv409, 7:14cv410, 7:14cv412,
7:14cv415, 7:14cv416, 7:14cv480, 7:14cv481, 7:14cv482, 7:14cv483, 7:14cv499,
7:14cv500, 7:14cv501, 7:14cv502, 7:14cv513, 7:14cv514, 7:14cv515, 7:14cv520,
7:14cv521, 7:14cv522, 7:14cv523, 7:14cv524, and 7:14cv525. Jones is advised that
inmates’ right of access to the court does not include a right to prosecute frivolous,
malicious, abusive, or vexatious motions. Demos v. Keating, 33 F. App’x. 918 (10th Cir.
2002); Tinker v. Hanks, 255 F.3d 444, 445 (7th Cir. 2001); In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943
(4th Cir. 1997) (unpublished). Jones is hereby notified that future frivolous and abusive
filings may result in the imposition of a pre-filing injunction against him. Cromer v.
Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004).
-2-

A separate Final Order will be entered herewith. The clerk will send a copy
of that Final Order and this Opinion to the plaintiff.
DATED: October 22, 2014
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-3-