Lopez v. Ramsey

Background

Stephen B. Lopez, who was representing himself, sued Ismail J. Ramsey and other defendants. From the complaint, the court understood Lopez to be challenging his criminal conviction and the terms of his supervised release. In the earlier criminal case, Lopez pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and agreed to pay restitution. Judge Jeffrey S. White sentenced him to 24 months in prison and ordered him to pay $1.3 million in restitution.

Lopez alleged that he was a “stateless person” and a “transient foreigner” without a legal domicile, and therefore outside the federal government’s jurisdiction. He claimed that the government had prosecuted a separate, government-created entity named “Stephen Bernard Lopez” rather than him. He also alleged that Judge White and defendants from the U.S. Attorney’s Office violated due process and acted in conspiracy with one another. Lopez sought to overturn his conviction, dismiss the criminal case, obtain more than $3 billion in damages, and recover property.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally recognized claim. The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual allegations to support a plausible claim for relief. Although the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true when deciding such a motion, it does not accept conclusory allegations or unreasonable inferences as true.

Sovereign-citizen arguments

The court said that Lopez’s theory—that the federal government lacked jurisdiction over him because he was a “flesh and blood man,” a “non-citizen,” or a separate entity from the person named in the criminal case—was the type of argument courts have routinely rejected as frivolous. The court treated Lopez’s terminology dispute about the phrase “sovereign citizen” as immaterial to its analysis.

Judicial immunity

The court held that Judge White was protected by absolute judicial immunity. Judges generally cannot be held civilly liable for acts performed in their judicial capacity, even when those acts are alleged to be erroneous, malicious, or beyond the judge’s authority. The court found that sentencing Lopez and presiding over his criminal case were plainly judicial acts. It also found that Lopez had not plausibly alleged that Judge White acted outside his judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction. The court therefore concluded that Lopez’s claims against Judge White were barred by judicial immunity.

Prosecutorial immunity

The court also held that the U.S. Attorney’s Office defendants were protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. This immunity covers prosecutors’ actions in initiating a prosecution and presenting the government’s case, including conduct closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal proceeding. Although Lopez described his claims as involving fraud and conspiracy, the court concluded that he was actually challenging the defendants’ prosecution of him. The court found those claims barred by prosecutorial immunity.

Disposition

The court concluded that all defendants were immune from suit and granted the motion to dismiss. It found that allowing Lopez to amend would be futile, dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and ordered the case closed.