236 F. Supp. 3d 914
M.D.N.C.2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Margaret Darling sued five state judicial officers (District Court Judges Falls, Fox; Magistrates Thomas, Williams, McDowell) and two Greensboro police officers (Mills, Fair) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state claims arising from 2013 domestic-violence proceedings.
- Alleged acts: issuance of two DVPOs, multiple arrest warrants and arrests, detention >30 hours, criminal charges/summons, and disclosure of plaintiff’s DMV-derived personal information to the complainant (Sawyer). State action ultimately resolved in plaintiff’s favor.
- Police defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6); judicial defendants moved under Rules 12(b)(1),(2),(5),(6) and asserted Eleventh Amendment and absolute judicial immunity.
- Court dismissed federal claims against the police officers for failure to state plausible Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and held DPPA disclosure was permissible as alleged.
- Court dismissed federal claims against the judicial officers on Eleventh Amendment and absolute judicial-immunity grounds and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mills’s DMV lookup and disclosure violated the Fourth Amendment | Mills’ DMV query and disclosure constituted an unreasonable search | License-plate/vehicle info is not private; no Fourth Amendment search | Dismissed — no reasonable expectation of privacy in license-plate/vehicle info |
| Whether Mills’s conduct violated procedural due process (Fourteenth Amendment) | Running a tag and disclosing info deprived plaintiff of procedural due process | Plaintiff fails to identify any protected liberty or property interest | Dismissed — complaint lacks allegation of protected interest |
| Whether Mills violated the DPPA by providing DMV-derived info to a private citizen | DPPA violation by unauthorized disclosure to complainant | Disclosure was by a law-enforcement officer performing official duties (permitted DPPA use) | Dismissed — allegations show a permissible law-enforcement disclosure under DPPA |
| Whether Fair’s seeking/obtaining arrest warrant violated Fourth/Fourteenth Amendments | Fair obtained arrest warrant on uncorroborated hearsay without probable cause | Probable-cause determination for warrants may be nonadversarial and based on hearsay; standard met for dismissal | Dismissed — warrant procedure/hearsay does not per se violate Fourth; Fourteenth claim conclusory and dismissed |
| Whether judicial defendants can be sued for damages in their official capacities | Judicial acts were wrongful and outside jurisdiction | Official-capacity claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment; judicial acts entitled to absolute immunity | Dismissed — Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages; absolute judicial immunity bars individual-capacity §1983 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (scope of judicial immunity; judges immune for judicial acts even if erroneous)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity overview; nonjudicial acts and acts in complete absence of jurisdiction are exceptions)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 (1872) (foundational statement supporting absolute judicial immunity)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (probable-cause determination for arrest warrants may be nonadversarial and rest on hearsay)
- King v. Jones, 824 F.2d 324 (4th Cir.) (probable cause for warrants can be based on hearsay; magistrate determinations nonadversarial)
- United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113 (4th Cir.) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in visible exterior parts of an automobile)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official-capacity suit against state officials is treated as suit against the State and barred by Eleventh Amendment)