523 F.Supp.3d 802
E.D. Va.2021Background
- Marshall married plaintiff Cynthia Marshall in 2015; she conveyed her residence to herself and Watson Marshall as tenants by the entirety.
- Watson Marshall became gravely ill in July 2018 and, while hospitalized and reportedly incapacitated, allegedly executed new advance directives and durable powers of attorney naming sons John and Robert Marshall as agents.
- While Watson was hospitalized, Robert (with assistance from Officer T.W. Holmes) obtained an ex parte emergency protective order (EPO) that (among other conditions) excluded Cynthia from the home for 72 hours; Officer Holmes served the EPO at night, demanded Cynthia's house key, and gave it to Marshall family members.
- Andrea and Robert subsequently entered the home and removed personal items; neighbors observed and recorded the events; the EPO expired after 72 hours and Watson died soon thereafter.
- Cynthia sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment deprivation, conspiracies, unlawful eviction, seizure of key), and asserted state-law claims for conversion and common-law conspiracy; defendants moved to dismiss. The district court denied all motions except it dismissed Brenda Thompson without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Holmes is entitled to qualified immunity for securing/executing the EPO that evicted Cynthia | Holmes knowingly procured and executed a legally baseless eviction that deprived Cynthia of possessory interest in her home | Holmes relied on a magistrate-issued EPO and thus acted reasonably; no clearly established law put him on notice | Denied immunity on these allegations — court finds officer plausibly violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights when evicting plaintiff under the circumstances |
| Whether seizing Cynthia's house key and delivering it to Marshalls violated the Fourth Amendment | Seizure of the key and delivery to private actors enabled an unlawful dispossession and thus was a Fourth Amendment seizure without warrant or legal basis | The EPO authorized possession to Watson (and officers executed the order); delivery was consistent with carrying out the order | Held unlawful on the pleadings — seizure and delivery were not authorized and violated clearly established Fourth Amendment protections |
| Sufficiency of conspiracy allegations (§ 1983 and common-law) against Holmes and the Marshall defendants | Alleged coordinated scheme: Andrea lured Cynthia from bedside; family procured power of attorney; Robert and Holmes obtained the EPO; key was delivered and home was emptied — enough circumstantial facts to infer agreement | Defendants say allegations are conclusory, lack a meeting-of-the-minds or factual detail, and thus fail under Twombly/Iqbal | Court found the pleaded factual course adequate to infer concerted action as to John, Robert, Andrea and Holmes; conspiracy claims survive; Brenda Thompson dismissed for insufficient factual allegations |
| Whether Rooker–Feldman or Virginia preclusion doctrines bar federal review of EPO-related claims | Cynthia contends claims attack defendants' conduct in obtaining/executing the EPO and the subsequent deprivations, not merely an appeal of a state judgment | Defendants argue federal review would effectively overturn a state magistrate’s protective order and that preclusion principles apply | Court rejected Rooker–Feldman and preclusion defenses: the EPO was a temporary ex parte magistrate order (not a final adjudication) and plaintiff was not a state-court loser with an adequate opportunity to litigate constitutional claims |
| Viability of conversion claim against Andrea and Robert (and marital-property defense) | Cynthia alleges specific items taken belonged solely to her (e.g., items of her late first husband, a television) | Defendants contend most items were marital property or taken as agents of Watson under power of attorney | Court allowed conversion claim to proceed — accepts allegations that some items were Cynthia’s separate property and Andrea lacked authority; marital-property defense not resolved at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to presumption of truth on a motion to dismiss)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (private actors can be liable under § 1983 when they obtain significant aid from state officials)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (eviction/dispossession implicates the Fourth Amendment)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (special Fourth Amendment protection afforded the home)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (seizure occurs when there is meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith reliance on a warrant may shield officers, but exceptions apply when reliance is unreasonable)
- City of Wesby v. Sanders, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (clearly established-rights inquiry requires particularity)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (there can be obvious cases where officers should know conduct is unlawful)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) (magistrate-issued warrants are strong evidence of objective reasonableness but do not end the inquiry)
- Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2006) (temporary or partial deprivations can constitute Fourth Amendment seizures)
- Buonocore v. Harris, 65 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 1995) (government agents may not facilitate a private person's general search of another’s home)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012) (scope of witness immunity)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (complaining witnesses who initiate proceedings may not be absolutely immune)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (limits on immunity for those who procure legal process)