John P. Darouse, Jr. v. Herbert C. Gill, individual

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1602
JOHN P. DAROUSE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HERBERT C. GILL, individual and official capacity; A. CONRAD BAREFORD,
III; CHARLES R. CARRITHERS; DEBRA MAYO; JPCR, LLC; MARK R.
HERRING, Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:21-cv-00094-RAJ-RJK)
Submitted: January 21, 2025 Decided: March 3, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John P. Darouse, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Brittany McGill Dozier, DEFENSE
COMMISSARY AGENCY, Fort Gregg-Adams, Virginia, for Appellees Gill and Herring.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
John P. Darouse, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil
complaint and denying reconsideration. He argues that the court erred by (1) finding that
the doctrine of judicial immunity barred his claims against a Virginia circuit court judge,
and (2) denying his motion for a preliminary injunction as moot after dismissing the
complaint and without a hearing or notice. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Because Darouse’s claims were premised upon actions that the judge took
in his function as a judicial officer and that were within his subject matter jurisdiction, the
district court correctly dismissed those claims as barred by judicial immunity. See Gibson
v. Goldston, 85 F.4th 218, 223 (4th Cir. 2023) (discussing judicial immunity). And because
Darouse’s motion for a preliminary injunction sought an attorney’s disqualification from
representing parties to the action, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
determining that the dismissal of the action rendered Darouse’s motion moot. See Di
Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 229-30 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting standard of review);
Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (discussing
mootness). Accordingly, we deny Darouse’s motion for judicial notice, and we affirm the
district court’s orders. Darouse v. Gill, No. 4:21-cv-00094-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va.
Aug. 30, 2022; May 23, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --