IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BIG STONE GAP DIVISION

JULLIAN HUFFMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:22CV00014 ) v. ) OPINION ) THE WISE COUNTY HOUSING ) JUDGE JAMES P. JONES AUTHORITY, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. )

Jullian Huffman, Pro Se Plaintiff.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed this action alleging that defendants Cindi L. Smoot and the Wise County Housing Authority brought a false criminal charge in an underlying state action. For the reasons that follow, I will dismiss the action pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. I. The plaintiff, Jullian Huffman, filed this action claiming that the defendants pressed a “false felony charge” against Huffman. Am. Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 4. Huffman previously filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in this case in forma pauperis pursuant to

(a). I granted that motion and allowed Huffman to file an Amended Complaint. Because Huffman filed the Amended Complaint in forma pauperis, I will address it sua sponte pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii). Cochran v. Morris,

(4th Cir. 1996) (stating that sua sponte dismissals are “freely permitted” under § 1915, citing Denton v.

Hernandez,

(1992)). A district court shall dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis at any time if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, or that it fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted.

(e)(2)(B); Michau v. Charleston Cnty.,

, 728 (4th Cir. 2006). This statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). A pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner,

, 520–21 (1972). However, even under this less stringent standard, the pro se

complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal when it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

(e)(2)(B)(ii). II. According to the Amended Complaint, Cindi L. Smoot “with the Wise

County [Virginia] Housing Authority” instituted a felony charge against Huffman at the Wise Justice Center on August 13, 2021. Am. Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 4. The charge was for destruction of property arising out of an August 6, 2021, incident in

which Huffman purportedly broke a window and door at the Inman Village Apartments in Appalachia, Virginia. Huffman alleges that camera footage shows only a broken window worth $250, which Huffman contends should have amounted

to a misdemeanor. Huffman was arrested on the felony charge on February 12, 2022, and is currently being detained at the Duffield Regional Jail. The underlying case is

currently pending in the Wise County Circuit Court and is scheduled for trial to begin September 9, 2022. Huffman contends that this felony charge is false and feels aggrieved because “Smoot will not agree to amend the charge to a . . . [m]isdemeanor.” Am. Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 4. Huffman seeks $10,000 in damages

and requests that the court “amend the felony charge to a Class 1 Misdemeanor or drop the charge.”

. Construed liberally, Huffman’s “false charge” allegation amounts to a claim

for malicious prosecution. To state both a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim pursuant to

and a malicious prosecution claim under Virginia law, a plaintiff must allege that they obtained favorable termination of the underlying criminal prosecution. Thompson v. Clark,

(2022); Lewis v.

Kei,

(Va. 2011). Here, Huffman’s underlying criminal prosecution is ongoing, so Huffman’s claim fails. Moreover, Huffman is not entitled to the injunctive relief sought — this court’s interference in the pending state court

proceedings. Cf. Kugler v. Helfant,

, 123–24 (1975). For the foregoing reasons, I will dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. A separate order will be entered herewith.

ENTER: August 15, 2022

/s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge