Roman V. Serpik v. Jull Weedon, et al.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma pro se plaintiff sued the Defendants on various constitutional law violation theories.

In January 2023, Oklahoma State Trooper Colby Vaughan pulled

Mr. Serpik over for failing to stop at a red light. During the traffic stop,

Mr. Serpik refused to provide his driver's license, name, or birthdate.

Trooper Vaughan arrested him, and he was charged with obstructing an

officer and failure to stop at a red light, in violation of Oklahoma law.

Judges Jill Weedon and Michelle Roper presided over Mr. Serpik's criminal

proceedings; District Attorney (D.A.) Angela Marsee and Assistant District

Attorney (A.D.A.) Gina Webb prosecuted the case. An Oklahoma state jury

found Mr. Serpik guilty on both charges, and he was sentenced to one year

and ten days in prison, with six months of his sentence suspended.

Mr. Serpik sued Judges Weedon and Roper, D.A. Marsee, A.D.A.

Webb, and Trooper Vaughan in federal district court. His complaint

asserted that the defendants violated his constitutional rights in numerous

ways from the arrest through trial and sentencing.



Judge Weedon moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) and, in a separate motion, the rest of the defendants did

the same. On February 12, 2024, the district court granted the motions,

reasoning that Judges Weedon and Roper were entitled to absolute judicial

immunity and that Mr. Serpik's claims against D.A. Marsee, A.D.A. Webb,

and Trooper Vaughan were frivolous. The order indicated that the court

would not enter judgment until February 22, 2024, "to allow Serpik an

opportunity to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and Local Civil

Rule 15.1 for any proposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint

and proposed amended complaint that overcomes the deficiencies identified

in this Order.” Suppl. R. at 11.



Mr. Serpik filed two timely motions to amend his complaint, but he

did not attach a proposed amended complaint to either motion. The court

entered judgment on February 22, finding that he failed to comply with

Local Civil Rule 15.1, which requires that proposed amended pleadings be

attached to the motion to amend.



Mr. Serpik filed a motion for reconsideration in which he again sought

leave to amend his complaint. The court denied reconsideration and denied

leave to amend, explaining that it had given him "time to seek an

opportunity to amend his complaint, but he failed to properly do so.” R. at

150.



* * *



The district court found that Mr. Serpik failed to state a claim because

"[j]udges have absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in their judicial

capacity,” Suppl. R. at 7, and he had alleged no facts suggesting that the

judges acted outside their judicial capacity or without jurisdiction. The

court therefore dismissed Mr. Serpik's claims against the judges with

prejudice. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355–57 (1978) (holding

that judges have absolute immunity for acts taken in their judicial

capacity).