By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
A Facebook post accusing three sitting Montgomery County judges of coordinated retaliation against a divorced father was pinned to the top of its page as of Aug. 31, drawing more than 500 shares. The federal court record tells a different, smaller story.
The post, from a page called “We The Parents,” describes attorney Nathan Charles as a father who sued Judges James Bonifant, Christopher Fogleman and Louis Leibowitz under the federal civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his divorce case went sideways. It lists a string of sanctions and rulings against him under headlines like “Sanctioned for Being Greedy” and “Banned to One Motion a Week, Forever.”
Court filings and reporting from the Maryland Daily Record show a narrower dispute, already headed toward dismissal.
“The federal court record tells a different, smaller story.”
What the record shows
Charles, a Baltimore immigration attorney who handles asylum cases, filed suit against Leibowitz alone in October 2025, not against all three judges named in the Facebook post. He represents himself. A separate, earlier suit against Fogleman was filed and then voluntarily dropped by Charles shortly after he sued Leibowitz. Bonifant does not appear as a defendant in either case, based on available court reporting.
The dispute centers on sanctions Leibowitz imposed during Charles’s divorce proceedings:
- $23,680 in attorney’s fees tied to Charles’s appeal of a custody order
- A separate $1,222 sanction connected to a contempt petition Charles had filed
The $23,680 fee has not been reported as withdrawn or reversed in any account reviewed for this story. The $1,222 fee has a more tangled history. The Daily Record reported in August that Leibowitz withdrew that fine after Charles withdrew the contempt petition behind it. The Facebook post, in its own account, describes that same fee as reinstated on July 23, 2026. MDBayNews could not independently confirm the reinstatement through court reporting, and is noting the discrepancy rather than resolving it. The fee’s current status should be treated as unsettled pending direct docket review.
On August 7, U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Sullivan, the chief magistrate judge for the District of Maryland, recommended the case be thrown out entirely. His reasoning was not a comment on whether Charles was treated fairly. It rested on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a long-standing rule that bars federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments. Sullivan wrote that Charles was effectively asking a federal court to overturn state sanctions orders, something outside its jurisdiction regardless of the merits.
Sullivan also recommended against letting Charles amend his complaint again to add five more circuit judges and three appellate judges as defendants, a request he had not yet been granted.
Charles called the recommendation “judicial gaslighting” in a statement to the Daily Record. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who referred the case to Sullivan and has final say on whether to adopt his recommendation, had not ruled as of this writing.
“His reasoning was not a comment on whether Charles was treated fairly.”
Where the post gets ahead of the record
- Defendants: The post names Bonifant, Fogleman and Leibowitz together as defendants in one active suit. Reporting shows only Leibowitz is currently sued, in a case Charles brought alone.
- Credentials: The post describes Charles as a “former DOJ National Security Division attorney.” Independent reporting describes him only as an immigration attorney specializing in asylum work. MDBayNews found no confirmation of the DOJ credential and is not repeating it as fact.
- Sanctions: The larger, $23,680 fee stands unchanged in every account reviewed. The smaller, $1,222 fee is genuinely contested ground: reported as withdrawn in August court coverage, but described by the post itself as later reinstated, a detail this outlet has not independently verified.
- The dismissal recommendation: The post frames the magistrate’s recommendation as procedural stalling. It is a jurisdictional ruling grounded in a decades-old Supreme Court doctrine that applies regardless of who is right about the underlying sanctions.
“Only Leibowitz is currently sued, in a case Charles brought alone.”
What this review does not cover
The Facebook post makes several additional claims MDBayNews could not independently verify through court reporting or the docket directly, including a separate $68,588.39 figure tied to Fogleman’s earlier, dismissed case, the specifics of a filing restriction, and disputes over custody evaluations and supervised visitation. Those claims are not addressed here and should not be read as either confirmed or debunked.
“Those claims are not addressed here and should not be read as either confirmed or debunked.”
Why it matters beyond one case
“Whether Xinis adopts Sullivan’s recommendation will determine if Charles gets a chance to argue the substance of his claims anywhere in federal court.”
Self-represented litigants filing federal civil rights suits against the judges who oversaw their divorce or custody cases are becoming more common nationally, often amplified through parents’ rights social media pages before the litigation is resolved. Rooker-Feldman exists precisely to keep federal courts out of that lane, win or lose on the underlying facts. Whether Xinis adopts Sullivan’s recommendation will determine if Charles gets a chance to argue the substance of his claims anywhere in federal court, or whether the case ends on jurisdiction alone.
Sources: Maryland Daily Record, “MD attorney’s lawsuit against judge should be thrown out, magistrate says,” Aug. 10, 2026. E-Discovery LLC (Michael D. Berman), “Don’t Sue the Judge,” Aug. 11, 2026, quoting Charles v. Hon. Louis M. Leibowitz, 2026 WL 2279325 (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2026). Montgomery County Circuit Court judicial roster, montgomerycountymd.gov. “We The Parents” Facebook post, pinned as of Aug. 31, 2026, treated as a lead and not as an independently verified source. This story has not been confirmed against the PACER docket directly; a docket pull is recommended before publication.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.