Scotchel v. Karlin et al

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting WV State Bar's 15 MOTION to Dismiss; granting LDB's 17 MOTION to Dismiss; and denying as moot plaintiff's 24 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction; as there are no remaining defendants, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 3/26/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

JOHN C. SCOTCHEL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-03353

ALLAN N. KARLIN, individually,
and also known as,
Allan N. Karlin and Associates, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff John C. Scotchel, Jr. (“Mr. Scotchel”) brings this action against Defendants Brent
D. Benjamin, Robin Jean Davis, Menis E. Ketchum, Allen H. Loughry II, The West Virginia State
Bar, Margaret L. Workman (collectively “WV State Bar”), Rachael L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Lawyer
Disciplinary Board, and Jessica H. Donahue Rhodes (collectively “LDB”) alleging violations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically alleging deprivations of both
his federal due process and equal protections rights by state actors regarding his attorney
disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the annulment of Mr. Scotchel’s West Virginia law
license. Pending before the Court are: WV State Bar’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 15); LDB’s
Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17); and Mr. Scotchel’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF
No. 24). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS WV State Bar’s Motion to

1

Dismiss, GRANTS LDB’s Motion to Dismiss, and DENIES Mr. Scotchel’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
I.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of attorney disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the annulment
of Mr. Scotchel’s license to practice law in West Virginia by the Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia. Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Scotchel, 768 S.E.2d 730 (2014). After five years of
investigation, a Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel
recommended that Mr. Scotchel’s law license be annulled, and the Supreme Court of Appeals
upheld that recommendation. Id. at 750. Mr. Scotchel attempted to challenge the decision of the
Supreme Court of Appeals by filing a civil action in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West
Virginia. Civil Action No. 15-C-524, Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia (ECF
No. 16-1). However, that case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice on the bases of res
judicata and collateral estoppel. (Id. at -2). Following the decision of the Circuit Court of
Monongalia Court, Mr. Scotchel filed the instant Complaint in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, which was transferred to this Court on June 21, 2017. (ECF No. 59.)
Mr. Scotchel alleges that the ethics complaint filed against him was improperly filed due
to forgery and that if it had not been filed, no disciplinary charges would have been brought against
him and his law license would not have been annulled. (Compl., ¶¶ 39, 60–66.) He further
maintains that he presented sufficient evidence to overturn the charges against him, even though
his license was ultimately annulled. (Compl., ¶¶ 171, 178–78, 222, 240.) Mr. Scotchel alleges
that his disciplinary process lacked due process, including being denied the right to cross-examine
his accusers. (ECF No. 38 at 3–4.) He asserts that his hearing before the Hearing Panel

2

Subcommittee was tainted by misleading information and an attempt to “stack the deck,”
effectively denying his right to a fair hearing by an impartial and unbiased tribunal. (Id. at 5–6.)
Mr. Scotchel also maintains that the “State Defendants . . . knowingly failed to apply the
administrative disciplinary procedures equally to Plaintiff.” (Id. at 6.) Ultimately, Mr. Scotchel
alleges that these actions deprived him of his federal rights and resulted in “the entire ethics
complaint process [being] defective and invalid.” (Id. at 6–8.)
LDB filed their motion to dismiss on March 14, 2017. (ECF No. 15.) WV State Bar filed
their motion to dismiss on March 14, 2017. (ECF No. 17.) Mr. Scotchel filed a combined
response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss on April 25, 2017. (ECF No. 38.) LDB filed their
reply in support of the motion on May 2, 2017. (ECF No. 40.) WV State Bar filed their reply
on May 5, 2017. (ECF No. 44.) Mr. Scotchel filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply as a
combined response to both replies by Defendants on May 8, 2017. 1 (ECF No. 45.) As such,
both motions to dismiss are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
Mr. Scotchel filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on March 15, 2017. (ECF No. 24.)
Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of Pennsylvania deferred ruling on the motion and
held briefing in abeyance pending further order of the court finding that “the relief sought in this
Motion essentially merges with the ultimate equitable relief sought in this case.” (ECF No. 29.)
Following the transfer to this Court, the undersigned ordered that the response deadlines for the
motion continue to be held in abeyance pending disposition of the motions to dismiss. (ECF No.
66.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

1

The Court GRANTS Mr. Scotchel’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply, (ECF No. 45), and will consider his surreply.

3

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted tests the
legal sufficiency of a civil complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A plaintiff must allege sufficient
facts, which, if proven, would entitle him to relief under a cognizable legal claim. Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554–55 (2007). A case should be dismissed if, viewing the wellpleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
the complaint does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 570. In applying this standard, a court must utilize a two-pronged approach. First, it must
separate the legal conclusions in the complaint from the factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Second, assuming the truth of only the factual allegations, the court
must determine whether the plaintiff’s complaint permits a reasonable inference that “the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Id.

Well-pleaded factual allegations are

required; labels, conclusions, and a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir.
2016) (“Bare legal conclusions ‘are not entitled to the assumption of truth’ and are insufficient to
state a claim.” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679)). A plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” thereby “nudg[ing] [the] claims across
the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570.
III.

DISCUSSION

A. WV State Bar’s Motion to Dismiss
WV State Bar’s memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss argues that this
Court should grant their motion to dismiss on the following grounds: the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, the Buford doctrine, the Younger doctrine, judicial immunity, qualified immunity, the

4

Eleventh Amendment, res judicata, collateral estoppel, the applicable statute of limitations,
personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. (See ECF No. 16.) Specifically, WV State Bar argues
that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here because Mr. Scotchel’s claims have already been
litigated before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia during his disciplinary proceedings
and before the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia where he challenged the
disciplinary proceedings. (ECF No. 16 at 11–14; 16-2 (Civil Action No. 15-C-524).) Mr.
Scotchel does not dispute the procedural history of this case. In a combined response to both
motions to dismiss, Mr. Scotchel argues that none of the doctrines barring suit apply in this case,
largely on the basis that he is asserting violations of § 1983. (See ECF No. 38.) He maintains
that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable to this case because “no federal §1983 claims
have ever been litigated in the state court case.” 2 (Id. at 15.) The Court finds that the RookerFeldman doctrine applies and bars this Court from allowing Plaintiff to proceed.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional bar. See American Reliable Ins. Co. v.
Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2003). Under Rooker-Feldman, “a party losing in state court is
barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United
States district court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the
loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005–06 (1994). The key question
“is whether a party seeks the federal district court to review a state court decision and thus pass on
the merits of that state decision.” Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir.
1997). To put it another way, the question is whether the party “sues in federal district court to

2

The Court also notes Mr. Scotchel’s concern that these briefings were filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania
and referenced Third Circuit law. However, there is no difference between Third and Fourth Circuit law that would
have an impact on this Court’s analysis or the merits of the motions to dismiss.

5

readjudicate the same issues decided in the state court proceedings.” Brown & Root, Inc. v.
Brekenridge, 211 F.3d 194, 201 (4th Cir. 2000).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional bar that aims to prevent a losing party
from trying to get another look, and possibly a more favorable result, in federal court after having
their case adjudicated in state court. Here, it is clear that Mr. Scotchel has attempted to file his
Complaint in federal district court to re-adjudicate the same issues decided in the state court
proceedings. The claims in his state court complaint are exceedingly similar to his Complaint
filed before this Court, but Mr. Scotchel argues that he is now claiming § 1983 violations, which
have not been adjudicated in state court. (See ECF No. 38 at 15.) However, it appears that Mr.
Scotchel merely added references to § 1983 in his Complaint before this Court as an attempt to
insert “magic words,” hoping that this Court would recognize those references as sufficient to
prevent any type of abstention doctrine or res judicata from barring his claim. This Court does
not find these references sufficient as his “suit was brought in the face of the ‘well-settled rule’
that a plaintiff may not seek reversal of a state-court judgment simply by casting his complaint in
the form of a civil rights action; Supreme Court and [Fourth] Circuit precedent ‘clearly
prohibit[ed]’ the effort made by petitioner.” Hagerty v. Succession of Clement, 749 F.2d 217 (5th
Cir. 1984); cert. denied, 474 U.S. 968, 969 (1985) (Burger, Chief J., concurring).
Furthermore, it is clear that Mr. Scotchel is seeking a re-adjudication of his claims against
the Defendants in this matter. His claims were addressed and ruled against in a comprehensive
analysis by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. John
C. Scotchel, Jr., 768 S.E.2d 730 (W. Va. 2014). Mr. Scotchel has also had these claims addressed
and ruled against in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, where he had his

6

complaint, which is extremely similar to the complaint filed before this Court, dismissed with
prejudice on the basis of res judicata, which he did not appeal. Civil Action No. 15-C-524, Circuit
Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia (ECF No. 16-1, -2.). Yet, instead of appealing the
decisions of the aforementioned West Virginia state courts through the proper channels, Mr.
Scotchel seeks the review of this Court. It is improper and not within the power of this Court to
entertain the review of such a claim by Mr. Scotchel who is unhappy with the decision of the state
courts. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923). Thus, this Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims as the
same claims have already been adjudicated twice by West Virginia state courts. Therefore, the
Court must abstain from such a ruling, and GRANTS West Virginia State Bar’s motion to dismiss.
B. LDB’s Motion to Dismiss
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s action is barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and GRANTS LDB’s Motion to Dismiss.
C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Upon the finding that Plaintiff’s action is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as MOOT.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS WV State Bar’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 15),
GRANTS LDB’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17), and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 24). As there are no remaining defendants, the Court
DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

8

March 26, 2018