How Judicial Immunity Works

• Purpose: To protect the integrity of the court

  "The Court stressed that such immunity was essential to protect the integrity of the judicial process... ...we bear in mind that immunity status is for the benefit of the public as well as for the individual concerned."

  "[it] is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."

• Principle: To immunize the functions (not the persons) that the public rely
  

  "Here, as in other contexts, immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches.
  
  This Court has never undertaken to articulate a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to immunity. The decided cases, however, suggest an intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned by law to perform."

  "Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . . . That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstaves, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?"

• Inapplicability: Absolute Immunity does not apply when the officer acts in a clear absence of jurisdiction.
  

  "where the prosecutor acts without clear jurisdiction and without any colorable claim of authority the prosecutor loses the absolute immunity he would otherwise enjoy. Rodrigue[s] v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 79, 86, 602 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1st Dept. 1993)."

• Distinction: Excess of Jurisdiction vs Lack of Jurisdiction (ie, "complete absence of all jurisdiction")
  

  "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible. But where jurisdiction over the subject matter is invested by law in the judge, or in the court which he holds, the manner and extent in which the jurisdiction shall be exercised are generally as much questions for his determination as any other questions involved in the case, although upon the correctness of his determination in these particulars the validity of his judgments may depend."

• Test for Judicial Immunity:

  "There are only two circumstances in which judicial immunity can be overcome: (1) a judge is not immune from liability for actions taken outside his or her judicial capacity; and (2) a judge is not immune from actions that, although judicial in nature, are taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12 (citations omitted)."

  1. official's act is within his jurisdiction; and
  2. official was acting in a judicial capacity (see below)
• Factors for Analyzing 'Judicial Capacity'(ie, determining whether an official was acting in his/her judicial capacity):
  1. the act complained of constituted a normal judicial function;
  2. the events occurred in the judge’s chambers or in open court;
  3. the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and
  4. the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity.

  "Whether a judge's actions were made while acting in his judicial capacity depends on whether: (1) the act complained of constituted a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge's chambers or in open court; (3) the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and (4) the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity. Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1983)."

• Considerations for Applying Absolute Immunity:
  1. the need to assure that the individual can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation;
  2. the presence of safeguards that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct;
  3. insulation from political influence;
  4. the importance of precedent
  5. the adversary nature of the process
  6. the correctability of the error on appeal
  "At the outset we note that we agree with Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s assessment of the six-factor test as it relates to Bast and the subsequent recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. However, we shall undertake a brief analysis of the factors for the sake of completeness."
  
  - see Lonzetta v Hazle, 3:02-cv-00018-TMB (USPAMD) (PDF, Page 8)
• TBD's First Recommendation: Read the Mireles v Waco opinion
  • Reason #1: It deals with a judge
  • Reason #2: It's succinct
  • Reason #3: It incorporates/summarizes many other fundamental decisions
  • Reason #4: It's short
• TBD's Second Recommendation: Read the Young v Selsky opinion
  • Reason #1: It deals with a judge
  • Reason #2: It's succinct
  • Reason #3: It incorporates/summarizes many other fundamental decisions
  • Reason #4: It's short

• Useful Quotes:
  

  "absolute immunity is an affirmative defense whose availability depends on the nature of the function being performed by the defendant official who is alleged to have engaged in the challenged conduct"
  

  "In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1104, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978), the Supreme Court stated that judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 actions only for judicial acts for which they have at least a semblance of jurisdiction. Where a judge proceeded in "the clear absence of all jurisdiction," the Court ruled, a different result would be in order."
  

  "it is well settled that the immunity of prosecutors is based on the same considerations that underlie the immunity of judges, Imbler, 424 U.S. at 422, 96 S.Ct. at 991, and since there is no functional basis for according a greater degree of protection to prosecutors than to judges, a dissimilar standard would be incongruous. See Lerwill v. Joslin, 712 F.2d 435, 438 (10th Cir. 1983)"
  

  "The task of determining whether a particular activity is better characterized as "quasi-judicial" and subject to absolute immunity, or "investigative" and subject to only qualified "good faith" immunity requires more than the mechanical application of labels. An examination of the functional nature of prosecutorial behavior, rather than the status of the person performing the act, is determinative."
  

  "A judge is absolutely immune from a section 1983 suit for damages only for (a) judicial acts (b) for which the judge has at least a semblance of subject matter jurisdiction. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978)"
  

  "A defendant engaged in advocative functions will be denied absolute immunity only if he acts "without any colorable claim of authority." Schloss v. Bouse, 876 F.2d at 291 (quoting Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 361 (2d Cir. 1987)). The appropriate inquiry, thus, is not whether authorized acts are performed with a good or bad motive, but whether the acts at issue are beyond the prosecutor's authority. Accordingly, where a prosecutor is sued under § 1983 for unconstitutional abuse of his discretion to initiate prosecutions, a court will begin by considering whether relevant statutes authorize prosecution for the charged conduct. If they do not, absolute immunity must be denied."
  

PDFs:

• Judges: Immunities: Judicial Act and Jurisdiction Broadly Defined. (Stump v Sparkman), 62 Marq. L. Rev. 112 (1978)
• Judicial Immunity and Sovereignty, 6 Hastings Const. L.Q. 237 (1978)
• Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability, San Diego Law Review [Vol. 27:1, 1990]
• Judicial Immunity vs Due Process: When Should a Judge be Subject to Suit?, Cato Journal Vol 7, No. 2 (Fall 1987)
• Judicial Immunity: An Unqualified Sanction of Tyranny from the Bench, 30 Fla. L. Rev. 810 (1978)
• Judicial Immunity: In Search of an Appropriate Limiting Formula, U.N.B. Law Journal
• Persons Who Are Not "Persons": Absolute Judicial Immunity under Section 1983, 28 Depaul L. Rev. 1 (1978)
• Stump v Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 1980 Duke L. J. 879
• Suing Judges: History and Theory, South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 31: Iss. 2, Article 4 (1980)
• The Judge Needs a Lawyer, 29 Cath. U. L. Rev. 751 (1980)
• The Problem of "The Judge Who Makes the Case His Own", 49 Cath. U. L. Rev. 429 (2000)
• What Constitutes a Judicial Act for Purposes of Judicial Immunity, 53 Fordham L. Rev. 1503 (1985)

• Bolin v Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000)
• Bradley v Fisher, 80 US 335 10L. Ed 646 (1872)
• Brown v Crawford County, 960 F.2d 1002 (11th Cir. 1992)
• Butz v Economou, 438 US 478, 514, 98 S. Ct. 2894, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1978)
• Dennis v Sparks, 449 US 24 (1980)
• Dykes v Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942 (11th Cir. 1985)
• Ex Parte Virginia, 100 US 339
• Forrester v White, 484 US 219, 226-27, 108 S. Ct. 538, 98 L. Ed. 2d 555 (1988)
• Imbler v Pachtman, 424 U.S. at 409 (1976)
• Jackson v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 372 F.3d 1250, 1274 (11th Cir. 2004)
• Kapordelis v Carnes, 482 Fed. App'x 498 (11th Cir. 2012)
• King v Simpson, 189 F. 3d 284 (2d Cir. 1999)
• Lerwill v. Joslin, 712 F.2d 435, 438 (10th Cir. 1983)
• Long v Satz, 181 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 1999)
• Mireles v Waco, 502 US 9 (1991)
• Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1985)
• Montero v Travis, 171 F. 3d 757
• Oliva v Heller, 728 F. 2d (2d Cir. 1988)
• Parrish v Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 1996)
• Pierson v Ray, 386 US 547 (1967)
• Rodrigue[s] v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 79, 86, 602 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1st Dept. 1993)
• Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1983)
• Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 1998)
• Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067 (11th Cir. 2005)
• Siegert v Gilley, 500 US 226 (1991)
• Simmmons v Conger, 86 F. 3d 1080, 1084 (11th Cir. 1996)
• Simmons v Edmonson, 225 Fed. App'x 787 (11th Cir. 2007)
• Smith v Shook, 237 F. 3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2001)
• Stevens v Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017)
• Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 (1978)
• Turner v Raynes, 611 F. 2d 92, 96-97 (5th Cir. 1980)
• Young v Selsky, 41 F. 3d 47, 51 (2nd Cir. 1994)