BECKLEY – A Raleigh County family court judge already disciplined for civil rights violations now has been named in a federal lawsuit following a search of a man’s home following a post-divorce contempt proceeding.
Matthew Gibson filed his complaint March 22 in federal court against Judge Louise Goldston as well as the Raleigh County Commission and three sheriff’s deputies related to the March 4, 2020, incident when Goldston stopped a court hearing and ordered the parties to meet at Gibson’s house to search and to seize items Gibson allegedly failed to turn over to his ex-wife following their 2019 divorce.
Earlier this month, the state Judicial Hearing Board issued its recommended decision to the state Supreme Court regarding Goldston’s actions. It recommended censure and a $1,000 fine despite a previously agreed punishment between disciplinary officials and the judge of admonishment and a $5,000 fine. She had been charged with violating at least seven rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct after admitting she visited homes of litigants to check on disputed property.
Goldston
According to the federal lawsuit, Goldston has been visiting litigants’ homes for 20 years to “determine if certain disputed marital property was present and/or to supervise the transfer of disputed property.” It says she admitted to doing such at least 12 times in different cases, including the Gibson case.
“She failed to explain the reason for the spontaneous visit to the plaintiff’s home,” the complaint states. “Because of Judge Goldston’s failure to explain the reason for the home visit, Mr. Gibson was unable to raise any objection while still at the hearing.”
Gibson, a federal law enforcement officer, says such a visit was threatened in 2018 by Kyle Lusk, his ex-wife’s attorney. Lusk also is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
“The parties and their counsel had been discussing the division of marital personal property between the parties, which was alleged to have been located at Mr. Gibson’s home,” the complaint states. “Speaking to Mr. Gibson’s attorney, in the presence of the parties, defendant Lusk stated, ‘I’m gonna tell you right now - and the Judge is big on that - I want [Mr. Gibson] to say certain things aren’t there, and we’ll get the Bailiff, and the Judge, and we’ll go there and see.”
After that threat, Gibson said the sides came to an agreement about the property, but the list never was attached to the final order. The night before the incident when Goldston went to Gibson’s home, Lusk called Gibson.
“The court has asked me to convey to you any settlement proposal I may have. Ms. Gibson would settle tomorrow’s matter for a fee of five thousand dollars,” the complaint says, quoting Lusk. “That would cover her damages and her attorney fees and costs. I believe there are a few personal items she still wants, which are mainly pictures, diplomas, certificates and the like. And that’s that. That’s non-negotiable. That’s what she’d take. Otherwise we’ll see you tomorrow.”
In September, the state Judicial Investigation Commission filed its formal statement of charges, with the Supreme Court against Goldston.
“The Judicial Disciplinary Counsel and defendant Goldston reached a settlement agreement, which admitted the factual allegations in the Formal Statement of Charges and which admitted to violations of Rules … of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct,” the complaint states. “As further part of the settlement agreement which she signed, defendant Goldston ‘admitted her wrongdoing’ and jointly agreed to recommend to the Judicial Hearing Board and the state Supreme Court that she be censured and fined $5,000.00 as an appropriate sanction for her violations.
“Defendants Goldston and Lusk had long conspired with each other to engage in the unlawful practice of so-called ‘home visits,’ thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of litigants appearing in the 13th Family Court Circuit,” the complaint states. “Defendant Lusk profited from the conspiracy, in that he received the material benefit of the ability to leverage Judge Goldston’s ‘home visits’ against opposing litigants and counsel, as he had done to the plaintiff.
“Likewise, upon information and belief, Judge Goldston profited from the conspiracy in that she received campaign donations and political and social support from defendant Lusk, partially enabling her to stay in office for over 26 years.”
In February, the state Judicial Disciplinary Counsel’s brief in support of joint agreement to discipline, said, “Nothing trumps the Constitution.” It recommended the Judicial Hearing Board adopt the agreement of public censure and a $5,000 fine for Goldston.
“There is absolutely no rule, statute or case law that gives a family court judge the right to enter anyone’s home without permission to search for items that a litigant failed to turn over in a divorce case,” the brief states. “Permission must be knowing, voluntary and intelligent. If it isn’t, a family court judge cannot enter. Family court judges cannot conduct jury views as part of a contempt proceeding. …
“By going into Matt Gibson’s home without permission, respondent (Goldston) engaged in an unreasonable search and seizure and must be held accountable.”
The JDC brief said a family court judge has no authority to conduct home views and that Goldston violated Gibson’s constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure as well as denied his due process and equal protection under the law. It also said Goldston didn’t follow the appropriate mechanism for contempt proceedings.
The JHB filed its recommendation, but the state Supreme Court still has the final decision. The justices haven’t issued their ruling in the matter yet.
John Bryan, Gibson’s attorney, said he took issue with at least one member of the Judicial Hearing Board.
“The Honorable Glen Stotler, a sitting West Virginia Family Court judge who ‘dissents because in his opinion there was no clear and convincing evidence that [his fellow Family Court Judge] violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct,’” Bryan wrote on his website. “Mind you, the undisputed allegations included the admission that Judge Goldston violated ‘Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.4(A), 2.4(B), and 2.5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct’ for, among other things, threatening to put the homeowner in jail if he refused to allow her (along with his ex-wife, her lawyer, boyfriend, and two cops) inside his home to search.
“As far as the rest of the board who voted for the reduced punishment, they noted in their decision that, ‘although there was no clear legal foundation for conducting the judicial view in question, the scope of a judicial officer’s inherent authority relative to judicial views is uncertain, and guidance to judicial officers from the Supreme Court of Appeals through rulemaking or otherwise regarding the proper scope of conducting judicial views would be beneficial.’
“No clear legal foundation? A judge can show up at your home with law enforcement and search your house, and there’s no legal basis establishing that she can’t? They’re asking for guidance on ‘rulemaking’ from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia on this grey area?”
“It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. … This is pretty damned clear. No state Supreme Court – not even a Legislature – can create a new rule or law allowing a federal Fourth Amendment violation. Period.”
In his federal lawsuit, Gibson accuses Goldston and the deputies of unreasonable search and seizure, a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He accuses all of the defendants of violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and he files a Monell claim against the Raleigh County Commission because of the deputies’ actions. He also accuses Lusk of conspiracy with a state official.
Gibson seeks compensatory damages for counseling and medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, psychological and emotional distress and other damages as well as punitive damages, court costs, attorney fees and other relief. He also seeks an injunction requiring appropriate training, supervision and discipline to remedy all of the constitutional deprivations he suffered.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 5:21-cv-00181
