Robert McKinley Blankenship v. Jim Terry Shortt

Blankenship · United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia · December 30, 2025 · No. 7:25CV00477

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Robert McKinley Blankenship’s motion to reinstate and amend his dismissed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court held that relief from the final judgment was not warranted and that amendment was unavailable or futile because the claims against his court-appointed attorney failed to state a claim and proposed claims against prosecutors would be barred by prosecutorial immunity.

Holdings

  1. The action could not be reinstated because Blankenship did not show the extraordinary circumstances necessary for relief from the prior Final Order under Rule 60(b), and the prior dismissal without prejudice was appropriate.
  2. Rule 15(a)'s ordinary standard for granting leave to amend does not govern when, following final judgment, the case is closed and there is no pending pleading to amend; the plaintiff must first succeed in vacating the final judgment.
  3. Amendment to maintain claims against Shortt would be futile because the allegations against him had already been determined to fail to state a claim on which relief could be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
  4. Adding the Commonwealth, prosecutors Brandon Goings and Dennis Lee, and the unnamed individual involved in the alleged indictment would be futile because the proposed claims concerned prosecutorial functions related to judicial proceedings and the proposed defendants would be immune from suit under § 1983.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court should grant relief from the prior dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and reinstate the action.
  2. Whether Blankenship could amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) after final judgment without first obtaining relief from that judgment.
  3. Whether the proposed amendment would be futile because claims against the court-appointed attorney failed to state a § 1983 claim and claims against prosecutors were barred by prosecutorial immunity.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (4)

  • BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 213-14 (2025)(followed)
  • Daulatzai v. Maryland, 97 F.4th 166, 176-77 (4th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Katyle v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…