MD judge dismisses former PG County judge’s suit alleging retaliation

Listen to this article

A federal judge has dismissed former Prince George’s County Circuit Judge April Ademiluyi‘s lawsuit against her former judicial colleagues and the chair of Maryland’s judicial disciplinary body, finding the judges are entitled to immunity on the ousted judge’s claims of retaliation.

In an opinion filed Monday, Maryland U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby dismissed Ademiluyi’s complaint alleging three Prince George’s County circuit judges retaliated against her in violation of the 1st Amendment by filing disciplinary complaints against Ademiluyi and by participating in her disciplinary matter after she filed a complaint alleging one of her orders had been changed by another then-judicial colleague without her consent.

The Maryland Supreme Court removed Ademiluyi from the bench last year after finding “egregious” misconduct and considering the recommendation and findings of the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities. That panel said that Ademiluyi committed sanctionable conduct for allegedly refusing training, showing bias against criminal defendants, and antagonizing staff and colleagues.

Griggsby granted in part Prince George’s County circuit judges Sheila Tillerson Adams, Daneeka Cotton and Michael Pearson’s motion to dismiss, rejecting their argument that Griggsby should abstain from considering the case, but agreeing with their claims as to judicial immunity.

Griggsby similarly granted in part Judge Anne Albright’s motion to dismiss, rejecting Albright’s abstention claim but finding Albright is also immune from suit. Ademiluyi sued Albright in her capacity as chair of the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities.

“[I]t is not clear to the Court that the Plaintiff was afforded a forum to present her claims in this matter during the state judicial misconduct proceedings,” Griggsby wrote, finding there is “no ongoing parallel state proceeding related” to Ademiluyi’s federal lawsuit, with the high court having issued its 102-page opinion last May ordering Ademiluyi’s removal from the bench.

But Griggsby ultimately agreed with the judges’ immunity arguments.

“The Judge Defendants have shown that the requirements for judicial immunity are satisfied here,” Griggsby wrote. “The Judge Defendants persuasively argue in their motion to dismiss that they are entitled to absolute immunity from the Plaintiff’s claims, because the conduct attributed to them in the second amended complaint involves their official judicial responsibilities.”

Judicial immunity permits judges be “absolutely immune from suit for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities or within [their] jurisdiction,” Griggsby added, noting that judges are not protected if they lack jurisdiction over the subject matter or when they engage in nonjudicial acts.

Ademiluyi has also filed a related complaint against Adams, Cotton and Pearson in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, alleging the judges retaliated against her for making complaints that the judges conspired with a federal prisoner to harass her, and mischaracterized her performance and character, which led to disciplinary proceedings and her removal from the bench.

That suit also named a freelance court reporter — hired by Ademiluyi to take depositions of Cotton and Pearson in one of her disciplinary proceedings before the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities — who Ademiluyi alleges tortiously interfered with contractual relations and caused intentional infliction of emotional distress by fabricating a deposition transcript.

Ademiluyi said in an email that Monday’s dismissal of her original suit does not affect her other pending lawsuit, which Griggsby is also presiding over.

Counsel for Adams, Cotton and Pearson, as well as counsel for Albright, declined to comment.

Ademiluyi has routinely portrayed herself as a whistleblower and maintained that the commission’s charges against her are part of a coordinated retaliation effort, which began when she unseated an incumbent judge in a 2020 election.

During her election campaign, Ademiluyi detailed her personal experience as a survivor of sexual assault and promised if elected to give a voice to sexual assault survivors and the “Me Too” movement. Ademiluyi also during her campaign said she suspected corruption within in the Prince George’s County Circuit Court, saying “police, prosecutors, and judges … literally put the justice system up for sale to rapists” and police and prosecutors “destroy and fabricate evidence to cover up the drug rapes.”

Justice Shirley Watts, writing on behalf of the Maryland Supreme Court, said Ademiluyi’s “impartiality might reasonably have been questioned as the presiding judge in a case involving rape charges” and called Ademiluyi’s removal from office “the only disposition sufficient to protect the public’s confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Last month, the Maryland Appellate Court vacated one of Ademiluyi’s orders denying a Prince George’s County man’s motion for reduction of sentence under the Juvenile Restoration Act. The appeals court remanded the case to the circuit court for a new hearing, finding Ademiluyi’s failure to recuse herself from the case — where the man was convicted of rape — was an abuse of discretion.

“Former Judge Ademiluyi’s campaign statements, which the Commission found could be perceived as a commitment to “a particular result or rule in cases alleging sexual violence…” created the appearance that she may not be impartial in such cases,” the appeals court wrote. “Despite such an appearance, former Judge Ademiluyi did not recuse herself from hearing Appellant’s JUVRA motion.”

The Juvenile Restoration Act prohibits courts from sentencing individuals to life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were minors.