Campbell v. McCally

1

SEBASTIAN A. CAMPBELL v. CHERYL A. MCCALLY, ET AL.

No. 328-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

July 17, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 468148V

Nazarian, Kehoe, Stephen H., Zarnoch, Robert A., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Nazarian, J.

After trial by jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in 2017, Sebastian A. Campbell was found guilty of four counts of second-degree rape and two counts of sex abuse of a minor. All of his convictions were affirmed on appeal.

This appeal arises from a civil suit that Mr. Campbell filed pro se against the judge who presided over his trial. In his complaint, Mr. Campbell alleged that the judge and other court personnel omitted material information from the record of his trial in violation of his right to due process, equal protection, and a fair appeal. The circuit court dismissed Mr. Campbell's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court also denied Mr. Campbell's motion for assignment of an unaffiliated judge. Mr. Campbell appeals and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In August 2017, a jury found Mr. Campbell guilty of four counts of second-degree rape and two counts of sex abuse of a minor. The court sentenced him to a total of 130 years in prison. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Mr. Campbell's convictions. Campbell v. State, 243 Md.App. 507 (2019).

In preparation for his direct appeal, Mr. Campbell received a copy of his trial transcript. He then filed a Motion to Correct the Record on the ground that the transcript purportedly omitted several items. The State did not oppose Mr. Campbell's motion and later filed its own Motion to Correct the Record that acknowledged that the appellate record "may be incomplete." We did not grant either motion and explained our reasoning in a reported opinion affirming Mr. Campbell's convictions:

In October of 2018, [Mr. Campbell] filed in this Court a "Motion to Correct the Record," in which he claimed that the trial court had made several comments during trial that supported his position but had been omitted from the trial transcript. In November of 2018, appellant's motion was denied. In September of 2019, the State filed its own "Motion to Correct the Record," claiming that the trial transcript "may be incomplete" with regard to the issues raised in appellant's motion and indicating that the omitted portions "would likely be relevant to [Mr.] Campbell's first question presented." The State then asked that this Court order appellant to correct the record "by ordering the missing portions of the . . . trial transcript." [Mr. Campbell] thereafter filed a response, arguing that the State's motion should be denied on the grounds that it would be "absurd" for him to be "responsible for providing proof of errors or omissions when his proper motion attempting to do exactly that was categorically denied." From those facts, we see no need to address the State's motion, as the relief requested, namely, ordering [Mr. Campbell] to correct the record, has already been denied by this Court and would serve no useful purpose given that [Mr. Campbell] has made clear that he no longer wishes to correct the record.

Id. at 524 n.3. Mr. Campbell filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Court denied his petition. Campbell v. State, 467 Md. 695 (2020).

In September 2019, Mr. Campbell filed a pro se civil suit against the judge who presided over his trial, Judge Cheryl McCally. Mr. Campbell's complaint named multiple co-defendants in addition to Judge McCally, including (1) the Administrative Judge at the time, Judge Robert Greenberg; (2) Judge McCally's judicial assistant, Lidia Laboy; (3) the Clerk of the Court at the time, Barbara H. Meiklejohn; (4) a transcription company; and (5) several unnamed court clerks, court reporters, and transcriptionists.^[1] In his complaint, Mr. Campbell claimed that Judge McCally and the court personnel "deliberately, maliciously and secretively omitt[ed] material information from the record^[2] in violation of [his] right to due process, and equal protection." He claimed further that the alleged alteration of the record "prejudice[ed] [his] ability to receive a fair appeal."

In addition to a monetary judgment, Mr. Campbell sought a declaratory judgment that Judge McCally "perpetrated a fraud" against him. He also sought "an injunction against Judge McCally stripping her of all jurisdiction, authority, and ability to violate [his] due process in any future proceeding" and "an injunction barring all defendants from the ability to utilize a recording method that provides any possibility of clandestine manipulation ...."

On August 21, 2021, Judge McCally and the court personnel moved to dismiss Mr. Campbell's suit with prejudice. They argued that they were "immune from Mr. Campbell's suit for damages" under the Maryland Tort Claims Act because they were acting within the scope of their public duties and Mr. Campbell's complaint fell "well short of alleging facts to support an inference that the Defendants acted with malice or gross negligence ...."

Further, they contended that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to provide the injunctive relief that Mr. Campbell requested because circuit court judges do not have the authority to discipline other circuit court judges and cannot dictate the method of audio recordings. In addition, Judge McCally and the court personnel argued that Mr. Campbell's complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted because "Mr. Campbell's description of Judge McCally's conduct [wa]s a collection of bald assertions and conclusory statements."

On April 3, 2023, the circuit court dismissed Mr. Campbell's complaint on the grounds that (1) he "d[id] not allege well-pleaded facts to support his conclusory allegations of 'malicious corruption of the record'"; (2) Judge McCally and the court personnel "[we]re judicially immune from tort liability"; (3) "[t]here [wa]s no legal basis to grant the requested injunctive relief" because the court had "no authority to discipline a sitting judge" or to "require undetermined and unspecified recording methods"; and (4) there was no basis to grant Mr. Campbell's request for declaratory judgment because he "failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

On February 21, 2023, about a month before his case was dismissed, Mr. Campbell filed a motion for assignment of an unaffiliated judge. In that motion, he contended that there was a "distinct possibility" that the judge presiding over his trial had interacted previously with the defendants in the case because the judge was a visiting judge and "visiting judges are on a 'regular' rotation ...." He argued further that it was "entirely possible" that the Administrative Judge may have received a "benefit" for assigning the visiting judge and that "this possibility present[ed] an unacceptable risk of extrajudicial factors influencing the consideration of the case." After a hearing, the circuit court denied Mr. Campbell's motion for assignment of an unaffiliated judge.

Mr. Campbell timely appealed. We provide additional facts as necessary below.

II. DISCUSSION

This appeal raises two issues:^[3] first, whether the circuit court erred in dismissing Mr. Campbell's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and second, whether the court erred in denying Mr. Campbell's motion for assignment of an unaffiliated judge. We hold that (1) the court dismissed Mr. Campbell's complaint properly because Judge McCally and the court personnel have absolute judicial immunity from civil liability for any alleged errors made in the record of Mr. Campbell's trial and (2) the court denied Mr. Campbell's motion for assignment of an unaffiliated judge properly because Mr. Campbell failed to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality.

A. Judge McCally And The Court Personnel Are Entitled To Absolute Judicial Immunity.

Mr. Campbell argues first that judicial immunity does not apply because "Judge McCally's action was not 'making' the record, it was 'modifying' the record which . . . 'is not a function normally performed by a circuit court judge,' without an order from the appellate court." He argues as well that it is possible that the modification of the record occurred while the circuit court was "divested of jurisdiction" over the case due to his appeal of the final judgment and that "judicial immunity would not attach to Judge McCally 'making' the record in that interim." The State responds that the court did not err in finding that judicial immunity applies because "[t]here can be no dispute that Judge McCally was acting in a judicial capacity when she presided over Mr. Campbell's criminal trial" and any actions taken by the court personnel at the direction of Judge McCally are covered by judicial immunity.

"'On appeal from a dismissal for failure to state a claim, we must assume the truth of, and view in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, all well-pleaded facts and allegations contained in the complaint, as well as all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from them .... '" Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Dhanda, 426 Md. 185, 193 (2012) (quoting Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59, 72 (2011)). "Dismissal is proper only if the facts and allegations, so viewed, fail to afford a claimant relief if proven ...." Lewis v. Murshid, 147 Md.App. 199, 203 (2002).

"'The principle that judicial officers should be immune from all civil liability for their judicial acts has been part of the common law since very early days.'" Keller-Bee v. State, 448 Md. 300, 305 (2016) (quoting Parker v State, 337 Md. 271, 277 (1995)...