Elizabeth Horowitz v. Michael Mason
681 F. App'x 238
4th Cir.2017Background
- State-court judge entered an $87,727.76 judgment against Robert and Cathy Horowitz in favor of the law firm Selzer.
- Horowitzes sued two Selzer attorneys (Epner and Kearney), Montgomery County Sgt. Shannon Songco, and Judge Michael D. Mason in federal court, alleging unlawful threats to enforce the judgment and that Judge Mason issued void orders (including authorizing a private appraiser and holding Robert in contempt).
- Robert Horowitz was held in contempt and later complied by allowing the sheriff into his home.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief (to enjoin enforcement of the contempt order and to bar any future entry into their residence) and damages under § 1983, the Hobbs Act, and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act.
- District court dismissed the complaint; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of injunction to enjoin contempt enforcement | Sought injunction barring enforcement of contempt order | Contempt enforcement remains at issue until complied with | Moot — Robert complied with the contempt order, so injunctive relief as to that order was moot |
| Younger abstention re: request to enjoin future entries into home | Federal court should enjoin defendants from pursuing entry into home | Federal court must abstain under Younger because state proceedings ongoing and provide adequate forum | Abstention proper under Younger; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Judicial immunity for Judge Mason | Judge’s orders were void and unconstitutional, so immunity shouldn't apply | Judge entitled to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts within jurisdiction | Judge entitled to absolute judicial immunity; claim barred |
| Qualified immunity for Sgt. Songco | Songco’s statements to Robert were unlawful threats violating rights | Songco’s statements were verbal notice of lawful options; not clearly established constitutional violation | Songco entitled to qualified immunity; complaint failed to allege violation of clearly established law |
| Sufficiency of claims against Epner and Kearney (§ 1983, Hobbs Act, MCDCA) | Attorneys used threats and unlawful measures to enforce judgment; statutory and constitutional claims | Alleged conduct was at most verbal notice and relied on state-court orders; some claims require showing state orders were void | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; many allegations insufficient and some depend on contention that state orders were void |
Key Cases Cited
- Catawba Riverkeeper Found. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 843 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2016) (mootness doctrine for injunctive relief)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (abstention from federal interference with ongoing state proceedings)
- Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for Younger abstention)
- Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2008) (Younger abstention elements)
- Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975) (Absent party in state proceedings does not necessarily preclude Younger)
- Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc. v. Gilchrist, 887 F.2d 49 (4th Cir. 1989) (application of Younger when some plaintiffs absent from state case)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (scope of absolute judicial immunity)
- Graham v. Gagnon, 831 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity standard)
- Harbourt v. PPE Casino Resorts Md., LLC, 820 F.3d 655 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)