Kevin “The Angry Vet” Soper’s on-going lawsuit against two officers who arrested him at a Veteran’s Administration building along with the Court Clerk who was assigned to his trial and the prosecutor who successfully prosecuted him for the charges saw new activity this week as attorneys for the prosecutor and the court clerk filed a motion to dismiss his amended complaint.
Soper is suing the pair for various charges against both, including conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, first amendment retaliation in violation of fourth amendment, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, denial of access to courts, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The YouTuber was arrested on January 29, 2022, at the Perry Point Veterans Hospital facility in Perry Point Maryland for filming inside the facility. He was acquitted of a disorderly conduct charge but convicted on eight felony wiretapping violations. He received a 90-day suspended jail sentence and eight months of supervised probation for those convictions.
According to Soper’s amended complaint:
Acting outside the scope of their authority as federal officers, Defendants Farrar and Money conspired with Defendant Robert Sentman to initiate a state criminal prosecution against the Plaintiff in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, Maryland. Farrar and Money completely disregarded their statutory directive to “first consult with the local Federal Assistant Attorney BEFORE proceeding with ANY prosecution. This requirement is expressed in the Federal Statutes and VA Police Policy Manual and is without exceptions. Instead, they went straight to a Maryland Judge to obtain an arrest warrant upon Sgt Money’s sworn affidavit. Later during Trial, Money lied on the stand and asserted that he has brought other charges, not traffic related, to the Maryland court in his Federal Officer capacity. The Maryland record defeats this claim.
Defendant Sentman, acting in an investigative capacity, advised and directed Defendants Farrar and Money to seek an arrest warrant from the state court. Sentman knew or should have reasonably known that VA Police are ineligible to obtain warrants from a State Judge pursuant to Md Law. Money, who obtained the warrant, knew or should have known that he was not lawfully eligible to do so.
Based on this void state warrant, Plaintiff was arrested and his cellular phone was then seized.
During the proceedings, Defendant Charlene M. Notarcola intentionally falsified court records to prevent Plaintiff from appealing a critical motion, thereby denying him access to the courts.
This pattern of misconduct continued through the criminal action. To elaborate, on or about June 24, 2024, Plaintiff observed a new entry in the public court record concerning a Motion to Recuse he ad filed. Defendant Notarcola had backdated this new entry by ten days to June 14, 2024. The backdated entry falsely stated that the Recusal Motion was “granted.” Critically, this Recusal Motion was not directed to Defendant Baynes, but was instead properly directed to the Administrative Judge, as permitted under Maryland law. Defendant Baynes therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule on this motion. His act of ruling on it, combined with Defendant Notarcola’s backdating of the entry, constitutes another instance of acting without authority and a conspiracy of falsifying court records.
Before trial, Plaintiff’s defense counsel withdrew from the case, forcing the Plaintiff to proceed pro se.
The state criminal trial finally took place from September 4, 2024, through September 5, 2024.
On October 15, 2024, following what Plaintiff alleges was a wrongful prosecution and conviction on the state wiretap charges, the court imposed a sentence of 90 days incarceration, suspended and eight (8) months of supervised probation. This sentence constituted a significant and continuing restraint on his liberty.
In their motion to dismiss, the attorney for Notarcola and Sentman wrote:
Sentman is entitled to absolute immunity as the conduct at issue arose from his role in the judicial process. Accordingly, all claims against him must be dismissed. “Where the individual is entitled to a form of absolute immunity, e.g., prosecutorial immunity or judicial immunity, neither the individual nor the State is civilly liable, even if the individual is also entitled to State Personnel Immunity under the MTCA [Maryland Tort Claims Act].” Rovin, 472 Md. at 348 citing Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 (1995).
Mr. Soper’s claims against Clerk Notarcola must be dismissed as they are barred by quasi-judicial immunity. Quasi-judicial immunity “extends to those persons performing tasks so integral or intertwined with the judicial process that these persons are considered an arm of the judicial officer who is immune.” Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994). Moreover, quasi-judicial immunity “extends to the judge’s subordinates for functions that are more administrative in character that have been undertaken pursuant to the judge’s explicit direction.” In re Mills, 287 F. App’x 273, 279 (4th Cir. 2008) (alterations and quotation marks omitted).
“[C]ourt clerks are entitled to [absolute] judicial immunity ‘when performing tasks that are integral to the judicial process[.]’” D’Aoust v. Diamond, 424 Md. 549, 599 (2012) (quoting Gill v. Ripley, 352 Md. 754, 771 (1999)). After all, “if immunity were not extended to clerks, courts would face the ‘danger that disappointed litigants, blocked by the doctrine of absolute immunity from suing the judge directly [would] vent their wrath on clerks, court reporters, and other judicial adjuncts.’” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting Dellenbach v. Letsinger, 889 F.2d 755, 763 (7th Cir.1989)) (alteration in original); see also Harmon v. Maryland Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. CIV. A. ELH-13-605, 2013 WL 867992, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2013) (citing Sindram).
Soper is seeking a declaratory judgement that the actions of the defendants violated his rights, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Notarcola and Sentman are seeking to have the charges against them dismissed on the grounds that Soper did not state an argument against either that could be successful at trial.
This is a developing news story.
