Don’t Sue the Judge

“A lawsuit by an attorney against a state judge who sanctioned him should be dismissed, a federal magistrate judge recommended Friday.” I. Round, MD attorney’s lawsuit against judge should be thrown out, magistrate says – Maryland Daily Record (Aug. 10, 2026).

[Attorney Nathan] Charles sued [Judge Louis] Leibowitz last October after the judge, who presided over some proceedings in his divorce, twice sanctioned him and warned him to control his anger after he threatened to sue a loan officer. Charles argued the orders and warnings violated his rights to free speech and due process because he hadn’t committed misconduct.

Leibowitz ordered him to pay $23,680 in attorneys’ fees to his ex-wife for his appeal of another judge’s custody order, as well as $1,222 as a sanction for a contempt petition Charles had filed. The judge later withdrew the fine, and Charles withdrew the contempt petition.

Id.  The article states that Mr. Charles sought leave to add five circuit court and three Appellate Court judges.

[U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy] Sullivan recommended that the case be dismissed and that Charles not be allowed to amend his complaint [because amendment was futile]. He wrote that the lawsuit clearly ran afoul of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents “state-court losers” from asking federal judges to review and reject judgments with which they disagree. He was not persuaded that the complaint raised legitimate constitutional issues that were separate from the divorce case.

“During this case, the Plaintiff has endeavored to frame his case as one that involves independent and separate issues from that of the state court divorce and custody proceedings,” Sullivan wrote.

“Yet it is apparent from his Complaint that he is asking this Court to review the sanctions orders, find them unconstitutional, and enjoin Judge Leibowitz from imposing any similar orders in the future.”

The Daily Record reports: “This is his second lawsuit against a judge arising from the divorce case; the first was against Montgomery County Circuit Judge Christopher Fogleman. Charles voluntarily dismissed that case shortly after he sued Leibowitz.”

The decision is Charles v. Hon. Louis M. Leibowitz, 2026 WL 2279325, at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2026).  “Before Judge Leibowitz issued the sanctions, he warned that if Plaintiff continued to maintain an angry attitude and instigate additional issues (like threatening a loan officer that he would sue her), making the case more difficult and heightening the existing tension in the case, then Plaintiff would be forced to pay attorney’s fees.” Id. at *1.

Mr. Charles’ demand for relief was: “a. Issue a declaratory judgment that sanctions imposed against Plaintiff based on his speech violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments; b. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from imposing attorney’s fees sanctions against Plaintiff based on the content or tone of his communications, filings, or criticisms,” and for costs. Id. at *2.

The federal Court wrote: “For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that the Motion be granted because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court need not reach the issue of whether Plaintiff has properly stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).”  Id. at *2.  “The Supreme Court has consistently held firm to these principles, creating what has become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and making it clear that federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments.”  Id. at *3.