Victor Walthour v. John Herron
16-3944
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Victor Walthour, pro se, repeatedly sued Judge John W. Herron and later other parties after a Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court order (Mar. 24, 2010) terminated Walthour as guardian of his incapacitated wife and approved sale of her residence.
- Walthour filed multiple federal complaints (2010, 2011, 2013, 2015) raising constitutional and criminal-law theories and seeking reversal of the guardianship orders and injunctive relief restoring his guardianship.
- Earlier district-court dismissals found no private cause of action under the criminal statutes, failed § 1983 and § 1985/1986 claims, judicial/Eleventh Amendment immunity, and applied res judicata; claims against non-judicial defendants were dismissed for lack of state action, time-bar, and lack of jurisdiction.
- In the instant fourth complaint Walthour again sued Judge Herron, PNC Bank, the new guardian, and an attorney, asserting violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241/242, Privileges and Immunities and multiple constitutional amendments, calling the order a “court-ordered kidnapping.”
- The district court dismissed the fourth complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous, malicious, and barred by res judicata, and enjoined Walthour from initiating further federal suits without leave.
- Walthour appealed; the Third Circuit affirmed, holding the complaint was plainly barred by claim preclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim preclusion (res judicata) | Walthour asserted same core claims challenging the guardianship order and defendants’ conduct; any new theories related to same facts | Prior final judgments on the merits bar relitigation of same causes against same parties | Complaint barred by res judicata; affirmed |
| Private right of action under criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242) | Those statutes support his civil suit for damages and relief | Criminal statutes do not create private civil causes of action | District court previously ruled no private right; appeal treated under res judicata and affirmed |
| Immunity (judicial/Eleventh Amendment/§ 1983) | Judge Herron violated constitutional rights; should be subject to suit | Judge Herron entitled to judicial immunity; official-capacity § 1983 claims barred by Eleventh Amendment | Prior dismissals applied immunity doctrines; claims precluded and no relief available |
| Sanctions / filing restriction | Walthour sought injunctive and monetary relief; moved for reconsideration | District court characterized repeated suits as frivolous/harassing and limited further filings without leave | Filing restriction and dismissal upheld as complaint frivolous and barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Corp. v. JMC Telecom, 470 F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 929 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1991) (elements of claim preclusion)
- Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (preclusive effect of prior dismissal)
- Churchill v. Star Enters., 183 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 1999) (claims that could have been raised earlier are precluded)