1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM SPARKS, 

Case No. 2:17-cv-0224

Plaintiff, Judge James L. Graham

Magistrate Judge Jolson

v. 

JUDGE JEFFREY HOOPER, et al., 

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND ORDER

Plaintiff, William Sparks, an Ohio resident who is proceeding without the assistance of 

counsel, brings this action against Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey 

Hooper and three unnamed bailiffs presumably from the Muskingum County Court of Common 

Pleas. This matter is before the undersigned for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) and the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial officers who 

render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C . § 1915(a). 

Furthermore, having performed an initial screen, for the reasons that follow, it is 

RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the Complaint, 

or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

Case: 2:17-cv-00224-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 04/07/17 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 15
2

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to set 

forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In 

reviewing the Complaint, the Court must construe it in favor of Plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded 

factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains “enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). On the other hand, a 

complaint that consists of “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action” is insufficient. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Although pro se

complaints are to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “basic 

pleading essentials” are still required. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Muskingum County 

Domestic Relations Judge Jeffrey Hooper and three bailiffs deprived him of his due process 

rights during a domestic relations proceeding. (See Doc. 1-2). Plaintiff alleges generally that he 

never agreed to pay child support but was nevertheless was required to pay it, and he was 

laughed at and ignored. (Id., PAGEID #: 7). With respect to Judge Hooper, Plaintiff alleges that 

he “refused to comply or show proof of any agreement” to pay child support, forced court dates 

to proceed despite Plaintiff having no witnesses, and refused to allow Plaintiff to enter evidence 

and follow the law. (Id.). As to the three bailiffs, Plaintiff alleges they “barked” him out of the 

building, called him names, misled him concerning relevant paperwork, laughed at him, told him 

Case: 2:17-cv-00224-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 04/07/17 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 16
3

to leave, and refused to allow him to enter items into evidence. (Id.). Indeed, Plaintiff goes so 

far as to allege that one of the bailiffs assaulted him physically in Judge Hooper’s courtroom. 

(Id.).

This is not the first time Plaintiff has attempted to file suit against Judge Hooper in this 

Court. In Sparks v. Zainesville Police Dept., No. 2:11-CV-284, (S.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2011),

Plaintiff filed a suit against Judge Hooper and 17 other defendants relating to a different 

proceeding, during which he claims he was also laughed at and assaulted. (See Doc. 1-1 in 

Sparks, No. 2:11-CV-284). After granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp granted him leave to amend his complaint for a failure to 

meet basic pleading standards. (See Doc. 2 in Sparks, No. 2:11-CV-284). When Plaintiff failed 

to amend his complaint within the specified time, Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. dismissed 

the case for the failure to prosecute. (See Doc. 4 in Sparks, No. 2:11-CV-284).

III. DISCUSSION

In this case, Plaintiff’s allegations against Judge Hooper for allegedly misapplying the 

law in Plaintiff’s domestic relations proceedings and related allegations are barred by the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The United States District Court does not have jurisdiction to review 

state court judgments. Only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review a case 

litigated and decided in a state court. See Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., 142 F.3d 326, 

330 (6th Cir. 1998). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a litigant cannot collaterally attack a 

state court judgment by filing a civil rights complaint. Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 754 (7th Cir. 

1993); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. 

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). On this basis, the Court recommends dismissal of 

the Complaint as it related to Judge Hooper’s application of the law.

Case: 2:17-cv-00224-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 04/07/17 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 17
4

Further, all but one of Plaintiff’s other allegations are barred by absolute judicial 

immunity. “Judges are immune from liability for damages for acts committed within their 

judicial discretion.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S. Ct. 1213, 18 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1967). 

Federal officers likewise have been found to be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity when 

performing quasi-judicial functions at the discretion of the judge. Balas v. Leishman-Donaldson, 

No. 91-4073, 1192 WL 217735, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 1992). Because the actions alleged here 

relate directly to actions taken by or at the discretion of Judge Hooper, they are barred by 

absolute judicial immunity.

The sole claim that warrants separate mention is Plaintiff’s allegation of assault. As 

constituted, Plaintiff’s claim for assault fails to meet the basic pleading standards set forth in 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Stated simply, Plaintiff cites no facts to support 

his allegation of assault, which consists of nothing more than an insufficient “label” or 

“conclusion.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although this Court has construed Plaintiff’s assault claim 

liberally, it fails to satisfy the requirement for “basic pleading essentials.” Wells, 891 F.2d at 594. 

For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS dismissal.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

GRANTED. However, having performed an initial screen, for the reasons set forth above, it is 

RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those 

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with 

Case: 2:17-cv-00224-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 04/07/17 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 18
5

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further 

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 7, 2017 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-00224-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 04/07/17 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 19