Opinion
C. A. 3:24-4-JFA-SVH
01-31-2024
In re: Portia Yvonne Holt, Debtor, v. Ms. Helen Elizabeth Burris and Ms. Annemarie Belanger, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the court on the filing of Portia Yvonne Holt (“Debtor”) entitled “Notice of Interveners by Right and Cross-claimants' Demand to Compel Discovery and Inspection of Evidence and Challenge of the Jurisdiction of the Court, and of the Judge with the Bankruptcy” (hereinafter “Motion”). The matter was construed as a Motion to Withdraw Reference of Debtor's bankruptcy case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.
All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). Because the motion is dispositive, this report and recommendation is entered for the district judge's consideration.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
This matter arises out of the petition for voluntary relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code by Debtor in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina (“the Bankruptcy Court”) styled as In re: Portia Yvonne Holt, Bankruptcy Case No. 20-3908-hb (“Bankruptcy Case” or “BR Case”). The case was assigned to the Honorable Helen E. Burris, United States Bankruptcy Judge (“BR Judge”). Annemarie Belanger Matthews was the Debtor's Chapter 13 Trustee (“Trustee”).
On October 5, 2023, the Bankruptcy Case was dismissed, and there was no timely appeal of the dismissal order. BR Case at ECF No. 85. The Bankruptcy Case was closed on December 6, 2023. Id. at ECF No. 93. On December 27, 2023, Debtor filed the Motion in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina and was assigned as a Miscellaneous Proceeding (BR Case No: 23-90013-eg) on December 28, 2023. The matter was then transferred to this court on January 8, 2024, and filed as a Motion to Withdraw Reference of Debtor's bankruptcy case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.
The Motion does not appear to contemplate withdrawal of the reference itself, but seeks relief out of the bankruptcy context. However, it is not clear what the Motion seeks, as it is comprised largely of nonsensical legal jargon. The Motion challenges the authority and jurisdiction of BR Judge and Trustee and requests discovery, although the discovery is not related to their authority, but appears to seek “discovery” related to BR Judge and Trustee. By way of example, the Motion requests:
True and correct copies of the Respondents “employee's pay stub, “and the “sewer and water bill” for the courthouse and Respondents' private residences for the last three months for every Respondent above defined, attached, and signed under private notary jurat, under penalty of perjury, on and for the official public record.[ECF No. 1 at 7] (all errors in original).
On January 25, 2024, BR Judge requested an extension of time to file a response to Debtor's Motion. [ECF No. 2]. On January 26, 2024, Trustee filed a response to Debtor's Motion. [ECF No. 3].
II. Discussion
United States district courts have original jurisdiction over all bankruptcy cases and related proceedings. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a), (b). However, the district court may decide that any or all bankruptcy cases and related proceedings should be referred to Bankruptcy Judges, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina has, by local rule, automatically referred “to the bankruptcy judges for this district all cases under Title 11 [the Bankruptcy Code] and all proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11.” Local Civ. Rule 83.IX.01 (D.S.C.).
However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d),
The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown. The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.Id. The first sentence of the statute identifies “permissive withdrawal” and the second sentence identifies “mandatory withdrawal” of proceedings referred to the Bankruptcy Court. See Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 482 (4th Cir. 2015); In re First Nat'l Bancshares, Inc., No. 7:12-3441-TMC, 2014 WL 108372, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 10, 2014).
A. Mootness
Trustee argues Debtor's Motion is moot because there was no longer a BR case pending after December 6, 2023, for which the reference may be withdrawn. The Trustee argues the Motion must be denied as moot “because no further matters are pending in [BR Case] that could be adjudicated by the district court.” [ECF No. 3 at 3].
The undersigned agrees the Motion is moot. See, e.g., In re Lear Corp., 418 B.R. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[A] bankruptcy court order dismissing an adversary proceeding moots a motion to withdraw reference pursuant to § 157(d).”); Charitable DAF Fund, L.P. v. Highland Capital Mgt., L.P., No. 3:22-CV-2802-B, 2023 WL 4768188, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 26, 2023) (“Accordingly, a bankruptcy court's order dismissing the adversary proceeding moots a pending motion to withdraw.”); In re Garden Fresh Restaurants, LLC, No. 21-CV-1440 JLS (KSC), 2022 WL 410942, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022) (“A bankruptcy court order dismissing an adversary proceeding moots a motion to withdraw the reference as to that adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.”); In re Byrnes, No. 121CV00295KWRJHR, 2022 WL 17752369, at *1 (D.N.M. Dec. 19, 2022) (same).
B. Merits
Out of an abundance of caution and should the district judge believe the request to withdraw the reference should be granted, the undersigned finds Debtor is not entitled to relief. To the extent the reference is withdrawn, and Debtor's Motion is construed as a complaint against BR Judge and Trustee, it would be subject to summary dismissal. As to BR Judge, it is well-settled that judges have immunity from claims arising out of their judicial actions. Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991). The judicial immunity bar includes damages claims, as well as cases where a plaintiff seeks both damages and injunctive or declaratory relief. Judicial immunity is a protection from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages, and such immunity is not pierced by allegations of corruption or bad faith. See Mireless, 502 U.S. at 11; see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.'”) (citation omitted). As Debtor's claims against BR Judge relate to her judicial actions, she is entitled to absolute immunity.
Further, attorneys serving as trustees in Bankruptcy Court have been found to be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken in connection with their court-related duties. See Yadkin Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. McGee (In re Hutchinson), 819 F.2d 74, 76 (4th Cir. 1987); Balser v. Dep't of Justice, Office of the U.S. Trustee, 327 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003). As Debtor makes no allegations against Trustee outside of her court-related duties, the case against Trustee is subject to summary dismissal.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge deny the Motion as moot. In the alternative, should the district judge grant the Motion, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed because Defendants are entitled to immunity. If the district judge accepts either of these recommendations, Judge Burris's motion for an extension will be rendered moot.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).