RICHMOND, Virginia – A Raleigh County man is urging a federal appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling saying a family court is not entitled to judicial immunity after she stopped a court hearing to search his home without a warrant.
On November 15, Matthew Gibson filed his answer to Judge Louise Goldston’s appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition to attorney John Bryan, Institute for Justice attorneys Victoria Clark, Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo are representing Gibson in the appeal.
During a March 4, 2020, divorce hearing, Goldston stopped the proceedings, asked Gibson for his address and ordered Gibson, his ex-wife, her attorney and law enforcement officers to meet at Gibson’s home. Once there, Goldston led a search of Gibson’s home without a warrant, threatened to have him arrested when he started recording the incident and had a bailiff seize his phone.
Bryan
When Gibson’s ex-wife claimed items belonged to her, Goldston told her to take the items. Gibson says Goldston walked barefoot through his house and sat in a rocking chair.
“It was incredibly frustrating to have my rights and my privacy violated that day,” Gibson said. “This lawsuit is about standing up for my rights and ensuring other people have a way to get justice when their rights are violated.”
After the incident, Goldston was reported to the state Judicial Investigation Commission, which charged her with violating the state Code of Judicial Conduct.
Goldston has served as a family court judge since 1994, and she presides over cases in Raleigh, Summers and Wyoming counties. Before this, she never had been disciplined for judicial misconduct. But she did admit she had a 20-year practice of going to parties’ homes “to either determine if certain disputed marital property was present and/or to supervise the transfer of disputed property.”
In March 2021, Gibson filed the federal lawsuit against Goldston as well as the Raleigh County Commission and three sheriff’s deputies related to the incident. That was the same month the Judicial Hearing Board issued its recommended decision to the state Supreme Court regarding Goldston’s actions after 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.
Clark said judicial immunity is a judge-made doctrine that shields judges from being held civilly liable when they violate someone’s rights while acting in their judicial capacity.
“Judicial immunity should only apply when judges are actually acting as judges. Leading a search party is not acting like a judge,” she said. “The lower court was completely correct when it denied Judge Goldston’s claim that she was entitled to judicial immunity, and we urge the Appeals Court to uphold that ruling.”
Goldston claims she is entitled to judicial immunity and that Gibson’s claims should be dismissed.
“When a judge acts like a police officer and leads a search party, that threatens the neutrality of the judicial process and chips away at a bedrock American principle: the separation of powers,” Bidwell said. “Judges don’t get to act like police simply because they think they can do a better job.”
Last month, Goldston filed her Fourth Circuit brief seeking to have a lower court ruling reversed in a case. In July, U.S. District Judge Frank Volk issued an order denying Goldston’s claim of judicial immunity and scheduled the trial to begin July 19.
Because the case involves judicial immunity, it can be appealed before the trial begins. A defendant usually must wait until a trial is finished to appeal to a higher court. Gibson filed a response and a motion to dismiss Goldston’s notice of appeal as frivolous.
“The entire controversy revolves around a single, albeit unsimple, question,” Goldston’s Fourth Circuit brief states. “Judges are immune from civil suits for damages – so, was Judge Goldston a judge in this scenario?
“The inescapable conclusion upon a review of the case record is that she was. While it can be argued that she exceeded her authority – and the Supreme Court held as much … – issuing an ultra vires order does not remove a judge from the protections of absolute judicial immunity.”
Bryan previously said Goldston’s assertion of judicial immunity isn’t based on abstract legal theory.
“Defendant Goldston’s Notice of Appeal is little more than tactical attempt to dislodge the imminently scheduled trial date, mere days away from this frivolous filing,” Bryan wrote in Gibson’s response this summer.
Volk also addressed Goldston’s arguments that she was merely holding a Family Court hearing inside Gibson’s home, and that she should be immune from liability.
“The crux of Judge Goldston’s argument is that her actions were taken during the course of adjudicating a family court dispute,” he wrote. “She contends that, assuming she exceeded her authority, her actions were judicial in nature and hence subject to judicial immunity.
As noted, the court examines the nature of the act and not the actor. The nature of the act was a warrantless search of Mr. Gibson’s residence and a warrantless seizure of his property. The twofold inquiry is (1) whether a search of a residence was an act normally performed by a judge, and (2) the expectations of the parties, namely, whether Mr. Gibson was dealing with Judge Goldston in her judicial capacity.”
Volk said Goldston was not engaged in an act normally performed by a judge.
“Respecting the second prong, Mr. Gibson doubtless dealt with Judge Goldston in her judicial capacity at the outset of the March 4 contempt hearing,” Volk wrote. “The situation changed markedly, however, once the field trip began. Once Judge Goldston invited herself to the residence, began her warrantless search, and then seized private property, the die was cast. Nevertheless, Judge Goldston notes (1) a bailiff was in attendance, (2) the search was recorded much like a judicial proceeding, and (3) Mr. Gibson and his ex-wife made motions during the process. She asserts all of this demonstrates the parties dealt with her as a judge.”
Volk said those contentions “do not withstand minimal scrutiny.”
“Mr. Gibson’s motion for disqualification arose out of Judge Goldston acting as a witness rather than a judge,” Volk wrote. “Further, the recording of the search — which Judge Goldston attempted to halt — is in no way equivalent factually or legally to an electronically transcribed or recorded judicial proceeding.
“Judge Goldston recognized as much in her deposition. Judge Goldston has thus failed to demonstrate either of the two required prongs.”
Volk also said the Raleigh County Commission is going to trial on the issue of whether the sheriff’s office adopted and maintained a policy of illegal family court judicial searches of litigants’ homes.
In September 2020, the state Judicial Investigation Commission filed its formal statement of charges with the Supreme Court against Goldston.
Gibson, a federal law enforcement officer, is being represented by Bryan, a civil rights attorney from Union and by the IJ attorneys. Goldston is being represented by Adam Strider, Jennifer Tully and John Fuller of Bailey & Wyant in Charleston. The Raleigh County Commission is being represented by Victor Flanagan and Kevin Robinson of Pullin Fowler Flanagan Brown & Poe in Charleston.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case number 22-1757 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 5:21-cv-00181; and West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 20-0472)
