Brandon S. Killoran v. Donald Lewis Mason, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio grants the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings in Brandon S. Killoran’s pro se action arising from alleged law-enforcement threats, state criminal proceedings, and related state-court litigation. The court dismisses the federal claims based on grounds including failure to state a claim, limitations, immunity, lack of a private cause of action, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The court also denies Killoran’s motions for summary judgment, injunctions, sanctions, and to strike.

Holdings

1. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause constrains federal government action and does not provide a basis for claims against the Ohio county prosecutor or state-court judges acting as state actors.
2. A county prosecutor is absolutely immune from damages liability for conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of a criminal case, including initiating and prosecuting the case.
3. A federal district court may not review or invalidate a state-court judgment, and claims seeking relief from a state judgment or alleging that state judges wrongly decided the case are barred to the extent the state-court judgment itself is the source of the injury.
4. State-court judges are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from retrospective official-capacity claims and are absolutely judicially immune from individual-capacity claims based on judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.
5. Killoran's § 1983 and federal conspiracy claims were untimely because they accrued no later than June 15, 2021, while the complaint was filed on April 3, 2025.
6. The complaint failed to state viable claims based on civil conspiracy, civil RICO, aggravated assault under 18 U.S.C. § 113, or fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
7. After dismissing all federal claims against the City Defendants, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
8. Killoran's motions for summary judgment were premature because they were filed before defendants had answered and before discovery began, while discovery was stayed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Killoran stated a viable Fifth Amendment due process claim against a state prosecutor and state judges.
2. Whether the assistant prosecutor was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.
3. Whether the claims seeking to invalidate or obtain review of state-court judgments were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
4. Whether the judges were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity in their official capacities and absolute judicial immunity in their individual capacities.
5. Whether Killoran's § 1983 and § 1985 claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
6. Whether the complaint stated viable civil conspiracy, civil RICO, aggravated assault, or fraud claims under the cited federal and state statutes.
7. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
8. Whether Killoran's motions for summary judgment, injunctions, sanctions, and to strike should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed