Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-13-2023

Case Style:

DeAndre Harris v. Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer

Case Number: 3:19-cv-00046

Judge: Norman K. Moon

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia (Abemarle County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Larry Brown and

Defendant's Attorney: Elmer Woodard

Description: Charlottesville, Virginia civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants for violating the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1983).




MoreLaw Legal News For Charlottesville





Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Traditionalist Workers Party, Matt Parrott, and Jeff Schoep all fail. There are certain allegations identifying each of these parties in the complaint. (“Defendant Matthew Heimbach, a resident of Indiana, is the chairman of Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party.”); “Defendant Matthew Parrot, a resident of Indiana, is the co-founder of the Traditionalist Youth Network along with his stepson-in-law, defendant Heimbach.”); (“Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party … is an unincorporated association pursuant to Virginia Code Sect. 8.01-15, and a national political party committee registered with the Federal Election Commission since 2015.”). And there is one allegation that “Defendant Jeff Schoep, a resident of Michigan, is the leader of Defendant NSM, the largest neo-Nazi coalition in the United States. Schoep participated actively in the events of August 11 and 12 and tweeted afterwards that, ‘It was an Honor to stand with U all in C'Ville this weekend. NSM, NF, TWP, LOS, VA, ECK, CHS, and the rest, true warriors!


Those are the only allegations in the complaint specifically relating to Traditionalist Worker Party, Parrott, or Schoep. There are no other allegations about any of those Defendants in the complaint. As this Court held in its earlier opinion dismissing the claims against League of the South defendants, so too here does the Court conclude that this complaint has failed to include enough factual allegations against these Movant-Defendants, taken as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Dkt. 94 at 3. Indeed, as this Court wrote there with respect to those defendants, “[n]otably absent are any factual allegations that any of the Movant-Defendants ‘entered into an agreement with a specific co-conspirator to engage in racially motivated violence at the August 11th and 12th events.” Id. at 4 (quoting Sines, 324 F.Supp.3d at 784). “[T]his complaint lacks any allegations, much less any specific factual allegations, concerning ‘the method of agreement, the time or place of the agreement, and the scope of the agreement,' between Movant-Defendants and any other defendant.” Id. at 4-5. The Court previously held that the statement of Jeff Schoep, “standing alone and without further factual enhancement in the complaint, does not provide the necessary linkage to establish the conspiracy element of a § 1985(3) claim.” Id. at 5. Furthermore, the allegation that Schoep “participated actively in the events of August 11 and 12” is vague and conclusory, Dkt. 1 ¶ 24, and lacking in any factual enhancement. The Court therefore concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim against Traditionalist Worker Party, Matt Parrott and Jeff Schoep, for violation of § 1985(3). As in this Court's prior opinion addressing League of the South Defendants, the Court need not separately consider Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1986 claim-which is dependent on the existence of a § 1985(3) claim-or Plaintiffs state-law claims, which fare no better. See Dkt. 94 at 5-6.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: