42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 does not allow damages against judges and other court officials for acts within their official duties that are integral to the judicial process.

Ronet v. United States of America · filed 2009-05-08

Judges and other court officials "are absolutely immune from liability for damages" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fea’eral Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (l97l), for actions taken, as alleged here, within the scope of their official duties as "an integral part of the judicial process." Sindram v. Sua'a, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for judicial acts unless they acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Du Bois v. Warne · filed 2009-06-08

A judge’s immunity is overcome only for actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity or for action taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Ford v. Shuker · filed 2009-06-17

Plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages from Superior Court Judge Nan R. Shuker because judges are absolutely immune from lawsuits predicated on acts taken, as alleged here, in their judicial capacity.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims arising from judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Cheeseman v. Brewer · filed 2009-07-07

The district court properly dismissed the action because Chief Judge Brewer is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for his decisions concerning Cheeseman’s state court appeal.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on a judge for judicial acts when the judge’s court has some subject matter jurisdiction, even if the judge exceeds its authority.

Flanagan v. Shamo · filed 2000-08-25

Applying the foregoing authorities to the facts of this case, the Court finds that Judge Shamo was protected by judicial immunity when he ordered Plaintiff to remain in the Courtroom after testifying on July 18, 1996 and held him in contempt for not abiding by that order.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts taken within their general subject matter jurisdiction, even when the judge exceeds their authority or makes procedural errors.

Howell v. Hofbauer · filed 2000-12-05

Magistrate Cornell enjoys absolute judicial immunity to the claim against him in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Judges and other judicial officials have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on acts undertaken as part of their judicial duties.

Edge v. Collins · filed 2009-08-20

The claims lodged by Mr. Edge against judges and other judicial officials stem from actions undertaken as a part of their judicial duties, and are as such covered by absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims for money damages are barred by judicial immunity when judges rule on court-appointed counsel’s fee requests in particular cases; the immunity also covers court attorneys assisting with those rulings.

Bliven v. Hunt · filed 2009-08-28

It is well settled that judges generally have absolute immunity from suits for money damages for their judicial actions. ... Accordingly, we reject Bliven’s contention that the actions of the family court judges in ruling on his vouchers, and the supportive actions of their assisting court attorneys, were not judicial acts.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 claims for judicial acts, but issuing courthouse trespass notices is not a judicial act.

Huminski v. RUTLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. · filed 2002-07-11

It is well established that judges are absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims for equitable and monetary relief arising from actions taken in their judicial capacity. ... Turning to the question of Corsones' judicial immunity, the Court finds the issuance of a criminal trespass notice in Vermont is not a judicial act. ... In conclusion, Judge Corsones and Judge Zimmerman are not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge for conduct in a judicial proceeding.

Julien v. County of Alameda · filed 2002-09-18

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Judge Legge because he is entitled to judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against the United States District Court and court officials when those defendants are immune from liability.

Jones v. Vandenberg · filed 2002-12-12

Nevada state prisoner Christopher Jones appeals pro se the district court’s judgment, dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was entitled to entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) against a defendant in another civil rights action. ... The district court properly dismissed Jones’ action against the United States District Court and court officials because these defendants are immune from liability.

Judges and court clerks are immune from Section 1983 damages suits for tasks integral to the judicial process.

Kelley v. Moore · filed 2002-12-20

The district court correctly determined that it lacked authority to enjoin another district court, and that appellees are immune from suit in appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C.Cir.1993) (judges and court clerks “are immune from damage suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process”).

Section 1983 does not provide a viable claim against state judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity because they have absolute judicial immunity.

Rigaud v. Broward General Med. Ctr. · filed 2009-09-24

In her “notice of . . . removal,” Rigaud argued that, when state court judges summarily denied relief in Rigaud I, they violated her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the “notice” or action sua sponte after finding that: (a) there was no viable cause of action giving rise to federal question jurisdiction because the Florida judges were entitled to absolute judicial immunity while acting in their judicial capacity; ... The district court was required to dismiss Rigaud’s action for each of these reasons.

Judges have absolute immunity from damages under Section 1983 for acts taken in their judicial capacity unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

McBrearty v. Koji · filed 2009-09-28

Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages under section 1983 for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Judicial immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against defendants who are immune from suit.

Rice v. State of Maryland · filed 2009-10-22

Although the district court did not specifically address Rice’s claim of the denial of access to courts, we find that the claim fails because the defendants are immune from suit.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for acts undertaken in their judicial capacity when neither exception to judicial immunity applies.

Kelda Price v. Porter · filed 2009-11-02

As the district court held in the alternative, even if lack of jurisdiction did not require dismissal, the suit would be barred by judicial immunity because Price alleges conduct in connection with Judge Porter’s official acts.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for acts undertaken in their judicial capacities, and injunctive relief against them is barred unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Judd v. Bangeman · filed 2009-12-07

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the state court judges because they are entitled to absolute immunity for actions undertaken in their judicial capacities. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against a judicial officer “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”).

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for monetary damages arising from judicial acts within their jurisdiction, even if they exceeded their authority.

Severin v. Jefferson Parish · filed 2009-12-16

Judicial immunity is clearly applicable in cases, such as the instant one, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The judges are protected from Severin’s claim for an award of monetary damages by their absolute immunity.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against judges only for nonjudicial actions or actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Burns v. Mayes · filed 2010-02-08

Judges of all stripes enjoy absolute immunity from suits for damages when the action complained of was taken in their judicial capacity, even if that action “was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of [their] authority.” ... It is only for those nonjudicial actions or for actions that are taken “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction” that judges do not enjoy such immunity.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for judicial actions unless they act in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Holbach v. McLees · filed 2010-02-23

North Dakota inmate Mitchell David Holbach appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that the defendant was entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suit, see Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that judges are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for all judicial actions ... that are not taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction).

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 individual-capacity claims based on their court’s writ-review procedure.

Luna v. Kliebert · filed 2010-02-26

In addition, the district court determined correctly that the judges are entitled to absolute immunity in their individual capacities.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages in § 1983 actions for acts performed in their judicial functions.

Burnett v. Denman · filed 2010-03-08

Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from damages in § 1983 actions arising out of all acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions.

Judges have absolute immunity from damages claims under Section 1983 for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Kim v. Parker · filed 2010-03-25

More significantly, judges have absolute immunity in § 1983 actions seeking monetary damages for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Judicial immunity can bar claims under § 1983.

Gotbetter v. Wendt · filed 2010-03-30

Upon de novo review, we conclude, for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court, that plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Section 1983 limits suits for injunctive relief against judicial officers.

Ysais v. State of NM Judicial Standard · filed 2010-04-16

Judicial officers are explicitly immunized not only against damages but also against suits for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred when judicial immunity applies.

Thompson v. Eva's Village and Sheltering P · filed 2010-04-23

Among other things, the District Court properly ... rejected Thompson’s attempt to re-litigate or seek further review of claims that were fully adjudicated in No. 04-cv-02548, properly applied the doctrine of judicial immunity to bar claims for damages against the judges who rejected Thompson’s past claims, and properly rejected as insufficient Thompson’s allegations of collusion, conspiracy, and fraud on the part of the attorneys and others who participated in the prior proceedings.

Section 1983 provides judicial immunity from damages for a judge acting in a judicial capacity unless the judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Redford v. Judge Cynthia Wright · filed 2010-05-12

A judge acting in his or her judicial capacity is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages under § 1983 unless he or she acts in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-357, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 1104-05, 55 L. Ed.2d 331 (1978); see also Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562, 1567 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that a judge performing judicial acts in a matter over which he had jurisdiction is entitled to immunity for his actions under Section 1983). ... For the reasons the district court stated in dismissing the complaint, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that defendant was entitled to judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against judges for actions taken in a judicial capacity within their jurisdiction.

Scott v. Miller · filed 2010-05-26

The District Court properly applied the doctrine of judicial immunity to bar the claims against the judges, and properly rejected as time-barred the remaining claims.

Court employees acting at judges’ express direction to assist judicial functions have absolute judicial immunity from § 1983 claims for monetary damages.

Guccione v. Parish of Jefferson · filed 2010-06-16

The district court determined correctly that because they were only acting at the express direction of the judges, to assist them in carrying out their judicial functions, those defendants are likewise entitled to absolute judicial immunity with respect to Guccione’s claim for monetary damages.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against state judges for their judicial rulings even when those rulings are reversed.

Mehdipour v. Matthews, Jr. · filed 2010-07-13

As an initial matter, despite the fact that the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the order issued by Judge Swinton which denied Mehdipour’s motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale of the judgment against Holland and Star Metals, the district court was correct to conclude that the § 1983 claims which Mehdipour seeks to assert against Judges Coats and Swinton are barred by judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from damages under § 1983 for acts within their judicial jurisdiction.

Chandler v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-07-25

Specifically, Mr. Chandler seeks to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the magistrate judge violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis. ... “It is well-established that judges enjoy immunity from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” ... Mr. Chandler does not (and could not) allege that the magistrate judge exceeded his jurisdiction. Mr. Chandler therefore could not prevail on this claim.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages under Section 1983 for acts taken in their judicial capacity unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Owuo-Hagood v. Sullivan · filed 2010-07-27

Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages under section 1983 for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a judge for acts taken in a judicial capacity unless the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Angela Turner Drees v. Ralph A. Ferguson, Jr. · filed 2010-09-21

Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages under section 1983 for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the clear absence of all ... jurisdiction.

Judicial immunity may bar § 1983 claims against judges.

Tauro v. Baer · filed 2010-09-23

In a lengthy footnote, the District Court also determined that all of Tauro’s claims were time barred, and that most, if not all, of his claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. We agree with the District Court’s analyses and conclusions.

State-court judges may be dismissed from a Section 1983 action based on absolute judicial immunity.

Burgie v. Hannah · filed 2011-01-28

Having reviewed the record de novo, see Bandy-Bey v. Crist, 578 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the defendant judges based on absolute judicial immunity, and that the court also properly granted summary judgment to the remaining defendant because there was no evidence from which a jury could find in favor of Burgie on his constitutional claims.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims unless the claims concern nonjudicial actions or judicial actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Carter v. All District Federal Judges · filed 2011-02-25

Additionally, she has not established that these claims fall within either of the narrow exceptions to the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Gallas v. Supreme Ct. of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000) (stating that a judge is immune from damages claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless those claims concern the judge’s non-judicial actions or judicial actions “‘taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction’”) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991) ... (per curiam)).

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for acts taken in their judicial capacity unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Christman v. Walsh · filed 2011-03-02

Finally, Walsh and Nelson were entitled to absolute immunity because they were engaged in judicial activity when they entered and enforced the criminal contempt order.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages suits under § 1983 for acts performed in a judicial capacity.

Redmond v. Manfredi · filed 2011-03-09

It is a well-established principle that judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages under § 1983 when they act in a judicial capacity.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Lightner v. Huntsman · filed 2011-03-10

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Judge Judd, Judge Schroeder, and the State of Idaho, because these defendants are immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against a judicial officer “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, 302 F.3d 928, 957 n.28 (9th Cir. 2002) (“‘The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state . . . .’” (citation omitted)).

Judges are generally immune from damages under § 1983 for judicial acts, and court staff carrying out those acts may have quasi-judicial immunity.

Coleman v. Governor of State of Michigan · filed 2011-03-16

Judges generally are absolutely immune from civil suits for money damages under § 1983.

Judicial immunity protects a judge from a § 1983 claim based on sentencing or issuing a protective order when the judge acts in a judicial capacity and does not lack all jurisdiction.

Bobrowsky v. Yonkers Courthouse · filed 2011-04-08

These actions are protected by judicial immunity. To the extent Plaintiff is suing Defendant Judge Martinelli for sentencing her or issuing the 5/23/08 Protective Order, a judge’s decision to sentence a convicted defendant, or to issue a protective order, is clearly a judicial function, and there is no serious allegation that Defendant Judge Martinelli lacked all jurisdiction to issue the orders in the criminal case pending before him.

Section 1983 damages claims against Michigan prison hearing officers are barred by absolute judicial immunity for acts within their judicial capacity and jurisdiction, even if allegedly done in bad faith.

Reynolds-Bey v. Harris-Spicer · filed 2011-04-13

Here, Harris-Spicer was clearly acting in her “judicial” capacity–presiding over a hearing and authoring a hearing report. ... Even if Harris-Spicer’s allegation was made in bad faith, she is still entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 preserves judicial immunity for judges acting in their judicial capacity, even when malice or corruption is alleged.

Kaetz v. Mark · filed 2011-05-25

Indeed, the doctrine of judicial immunity applies even to allegations of malice or corruption; section 1983 did not abolish the well-settled principle of judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not abolish absolute judicial immunity, even when a judge is alleged to have acted maliciously or corruptly.

Abulkhair v. Toskos · filed 2011-06-02

Indeed, the doctrine of judicial immunity applies even to allegations of malice or corruption, and section 1983 did not abolish the well-settled principle of judicial immunity.

A judge’s rulings protected by absolute judicial immunity cannot be used to establish a § 1983 conspiracy with private defendants.

Gottschalk v. Gottschalk · filed 2011-06-16

Moreover, Judge Kell’s rulings in the case cannot even be considered in determining whether he had entered into a § 1983 conspiracy because he had absolute judicial immunity for those actions.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts performed in a judicial capacity.

Goodson v. Maggi · filed 2011-06-23

The Court further notes than in 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was amended by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3847 (1996), to bar claims under § 1983 for injunctive relief against judicial officers acting in their judicial capacity. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief pursuant to § 1983 against Judge Walker is barred.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity unless the judge acted outside judicial functions or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Rosario Fiorani, Jr. v. Berenzweig · filed 2011-07-06

The district court properly dismissed the claims against defendant Herndon on the basis of judicial immunity because Fiorani failed to allege facts showing that Herndon took non-judicial actions against him, or that his judicial actions were taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts, including controlling who appears in their courtroom and criticizing conduct related to proceedings there.

Montana v. Connor · filed 2011-09-16

The Court has concluded that Defendant’s acts alleged in the Amended Complaint, including barring Plaintiff from his courtroom and criticizing Plaintiffs courtroom conduct, are judicial acts, subject to absolute judicial immunity.

Section 1983 limits injunctive relief against judicial officers for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Dawn Ball v. Butts · filed 2011-09-21

To the extent that Ball’s request for injunctive relief might not have been subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), it was subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because such relief is not available against “a judicial officer for an act . . . taken in such officer’s judicial capacity” under these circumstances. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages under § 1983 for acts within their judicial functions and jurisdiction.

MacKey v. Helfrich · filed 2011-09-30

Judge Helfrich is entitled to absolute immunity because his actions in imposing the suspended sentence and then revoking the suspension were within his judicial functions and within the scope of his jurisdiction.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims arising from acts performed during their judicial duties, even when the claims allege a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Robinson-Reeder v. Kearns · filed 2011-10-03

Such immunity covers even suits claiming a deprivation of constitutional rights. See Apton v. Wilson, 506 F.2d 83, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (“The common law immunity of judges is fully applicable in suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivations of constitutional rights.”); Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121, 128 n.4 (3d Cir. 2001) (judges immune from suits under §§ 1983 and 1985). ... As all of Plaintiff’s claims derive from acts the Defendant judges are alleged to have committed during the course of their judicial duties, the judges’ Motions to Dismiss will be granted.

Federal judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 suits seeking injunctive relief.

Rolle v. J.L. Edmondson · filed 2011-10-20

Federal judges enjoy absolute immunity from suits seeking injunctive relief.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Guillion v. Cade · filed 2011-10-25

Consequently, to the extent Guillion seeks recovery for judicial acts during her divorce case over which Judge Cade had proper jurisdiction, her claim is barred by judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a Family Court referee are barred when the referee has absolute immunity for judicial acts.

Wilson v. Wilson-Polson · filed 2011-10-28

Wilson’s allegation that the Family Court referee violated his procedural due process rights fails in light of the referee’s absolute immunity to suit.

A § 1983 claim against a judge fails when he was not personally involved in the alleged deprivation; absolute judicial immunity also protects him.

Harvey Bramlett, Jr. v. Woodburn · filed 2011-11-10

The district court correctly concluded: Judge Woodburn was not personally involved in the claimed deprivation of Bramlett’s rights; and, even if he was, he was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

A judge is immune from a § 1983 claim based on judicial acts taken within the court’s jurisdiction.

James Paluch, Jr. v. Rambo · filed 2011-11-29

Judge Rambo raised judicial immunity as an absolute defense to Paluch‘s suit. ... If the answers are ―yes‖ and ―no,‖ respectively, then it follows that the judge is absolutely immune from suit. ... As the District Court determined, the action complained of was taken in Judge‘s Rambo‘s judicial capacity, and the ruling was well within her authority to make as arbiter in Paluch‘s lawsuit. We perceive no error in the District Court‘s determination.

Section 1983 claims against judicial officers are barred when the officers are entitled to judicial immunity.

Tennant v. Anderson · filed 2011-12-05

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court properly dismissed Tennant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Scott County and several state judicial officers because Tennant did not allege any facts supporting a right to relief against Scott County, and the judicial officers were all entitled to judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from monetary damages under § 1983 for their judicial acts.

Wicks v. Lycoming County · filed 2012-01-05

We start with Appellants‟ claims against the Judicial Parties, and observe that the doctrine of judicial immunity provides that “judges are immune from suit under section 1983 for monetary damages arising from their judicial acts.” Gallas v. Supreme Court of ... Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000).

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judge for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Abulkhair v. Rosenberg · filed 2012-01-10

Although we have observed that “absolute judicial immunity extends only to claims for damages,” ... amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have statutorily restricted “action[s] brought ... against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,” preventing injunctive relief “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”

Judges are immune from claims under Section 1983 for their judicial acts.

Houston v. Scott · filed 2012-01-17

In this action the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendants violated his civil rights pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC § 1983, and that their actions constituted violations of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-101, et seq., the Tennessee Governmental Liability Act. ... This lawsuit against the judges is barred by judicial immunity. ... Accordingly, we concur with the trial court’s reasoning and its decision to dismiss this action as to all defendants for the reasons stated in the July 6, 2010 order.

Judges are immune from § 1983 suits for judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Wood v. Parker County · filed 2012-03-02

Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from suit in § 1983 actions arising from the exercise of their judicial functions. ... Upon Wood’s motion to transfer, the constitutional county court judge was required by state law to transfer his case; the judge thus acted within the scope of the court’s jurisdiction and is entitled to judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for acts in their judicial capacity unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Manning v. Judge Dan Vaughn · filed 2012-03-09

Finally, the district court correctly dismissed as barred by judicial immunity all of Manning’s remaining claims. ... The judges’ actions were not undertaken in the absence of all jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against state judges for their official judicial actions.

Mitchell v. Medina · filed 2012-03-21

The district court explained that the state judges named as defendants are immune from suit because Mr. Mitchell challenges their official actions. ... Reviewing Mr. Mitchell’s pro se papers with the liberality they are due, we are unable to discern any error in the district court’s thorough opinion. Accordingly, its judgment is affirmed, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and Mr. Mitchell is ordered to pay immediately the unpaid balance of his appellate filing fee.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Missud v. Nevada · filed 2012-03-22

As Judge Ryu concluded, Plaintiff provided no evidence to support a conclusion that Judicial Defendants acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” so as to strip them of judicial immunity.

A vague conspiracy allegation does not defeat judicial immunity for acts taken within a judge’s authority.

Malcomb v. Dietz · filed 2012-04-10

In addition, Malcomb’s vague allegation of a conspiracy does not affect the immunity determination.

Absolute judicial immunity bars a § 1983 action against a judge whose challenged acts were not taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Kramer v. Bisco · filed 2012-04-17

The magistrate judge thus correctly determined that Judge Bisco was entitled to absolute immunity and properly dismissed Kramer’s § 1983 action.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Gillaspy v. Fielding · filed 2012-04-18

The district court properly dismissed Gillaspy’s claims against defendants Yaffe, Armstrong, Kriegler, Turner, and Stiglitz, because these defendants are immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against a judicial officer “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) (judges retain their immunity from suit when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly); Olsen, 363 F.3d at 923 (absolute immunity extended to agency representatives performing functions analogous to those of a judge).

Section 1983 does not permit damages suits against judges for judicial actions unless they act in clear absence of jurisdiction.

Da Vang v. Hoover · filed 2012-04-19

Wisconsin judges cannot be sued for damages under § 1983 or state law for judicial actions, even if the judge commits a procedural error or acts in excess of authority, unless the judge acts in clear absence of jurisdiction.

A judge has absolute immunity from damages claims under Section 1983 for actions taken in a judicial capacity.

Zhou v. Boasberg · filed 2012-05-01

Because Judge Boasberg acted solely within his capacity as a federal judge and is therefore entitled to absolute immunity, Plaintiff’s claim is barred on judicial immunity grounds.

Judges have damages immunity for judicial acts, and § 1983 generally bars injunctions against judges acting in a judicial capacity.

Coulter v. Doerr · filed 2012-05-30

Judges are absolutely immunized from a civil rights suit for money damages arising from their judicial acts. ... Accordingly, Coulter is not entitled to money damages from Judge Doerr, and, to the extent that she is seeking injunctive relief, her claim is barred because section 1983 provides that injunctive relief shall not be granted, with certain exceptions not relevant here, in an action brought against a judge who has acted in his judicial capacity.

Judges sued under § 1983 retain judicial immunity when they are not shown to have acted in the absence of jurisdiction.

Parent v. New York · filed 2012-06-18

Koziol claims that Justice Michael Daley of the New York Supreme Court and Family Court Judge Martha Walsh Hood were not entitled to judicial immunity because they were acting in the absence of jurisdiction when they presided over his divorce action. We hold this claim to be without merit, for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its memorandum decision.

Absolute judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against judges for their enforcement of a filing sanction.

Starr v. United States · filed 2012-06-18

Moreover, to the extent that Starr seeks to bring suit directly against Judge Starrett or Judges of this Court, her claims are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

State court judges are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from their participation in a retrial.

Simmons v. Wallace · filed 2012-06-29

The district court properly dismissed Simmons’ claims against the state court judges who participated in his retrial because they are entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit claims against judges entitled to absolute immunity for their alleged mishandling of state court claims.

Rupert v. Barbara J.R. Jones · filed 2012-07-20

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the defendant judges for their alleged mishandling of Slater’s state court claims because the judges are entitled to absolute immunity.

Judges are immune from § 1983 suits for judicial acts unless they act in a nonjudicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

James Schottel, Jr. v. Young · filed 2012-08-01

A judge is immune from suit, including suits brought under section 1983 to recover for alleged deprivation of civil rights, in all but two narrow sets of circumstances. ... Because Judge Young’s actions were judicial in nature and were not taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction, Judge Young is entitled to judicial immunity for the claims brought against him in this section 1983 action.4 See Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11.

Section 1983 provides absolute judicial immunity to a state judge who acts in a judicial capacity within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, even if the judge lacks personal jurisdiction over an affected person.

Leech v. DeWeese · filed 2012-08-03

State judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Because the order to remove Leech from the house was an exercise of Judge DeWeese’s subject matter jurisdiction over Griffeth’s supervised release and the conditions of that release, Judge DeWeese has established his entitlement to absolute judicial immunity with regards to the order.

A judge is immune from a § 1983 suit for issuing a search warrant within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Curry v. City of Dayton · filed 2012-09-18

Judicial immunity can only be overcome by a showing that the judge’s act was “non judicial,” or that the judge acted without jurisdiction. ... Therefore, Judge Henderson is immune from Plaintiffs § 1983 suit.

Judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims for judicial acts unless they act in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Rivers, Jr. v. Hartmann · filed 2012-10-15

Judges have absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity. ... Rivers has not set forth any facts suggesting the judge did not act in his judicial capacity. ... But given the proofs required to negate a judicial immunity defense, we cannot say plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to prove the judge took action “in ... complete absence of all jurisdiction.”

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims arising from their judicial acts.

Peeples v. Citta · filed 2012-10-15

We agree with the District Court that Peeples’ claims for damages against Judge Citta are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Section 1983 requires facts showing an actionable violation by an individual defendant; a judge is immune for official conduct.

Steinmetz v. Romero · filed 2012-10-15

Additionally, his complaint was deficient on the § 1983 claim because it alleged no facts sufficient to constitute a violation by any one of the individually named plaintiffs, save for the conduct by Judge Romero, who enjoys official immunity.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts unless they acted outside their judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Commonwealth · filed 2012-10-26

To the extent that the petitioner seeks monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a judge is absolutely immune unless the actions giving rise to the suit were “not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity,” or taken “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against judicial officers for their judicial conduct unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Stephens v. Oregon Ex Rel. Judicial Department · filed 2012-11-20

Moreover, the district court properly dismissed Stephens’s action because defendants are immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against judicial officers for their judicial conduct “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, 302 F.3d 928, 957 n.28 (9th Cir. 2002) (“‘The Eleventh ... Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state . . . .’” (citation omitted)).

Judges are immune from damages claims under § 1983 for acts performed in their judicial capacity, even when those acts allegedly violate constitutional rights.

Lewis v. City of Waxahachie · filed 2012-12-18

Lewis alleges that Judge Calvert and Judge Met-calf violated her constitutional rights, but the doctrine of judicial immunity insulates judges from suit even in cases involving allegations of a constitutional violation.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Brown v. Calabro · filed 2013-01-30

The allegations in Brown’s complaint relate to action taken by Judge Lupas in his capacity as a judge, and Brown has not alleged that Judge Lupas clearly lacked jurisdiction. Thus, Brown’s allegations are insufficient to overcome Judge Lupas’ judicial immunity.

Judges acting within their judicial duties are immune from Section 1983 suits alleging deprivations of constitutional rights.

Shibeshi v. United States of America · filed 2013-02-01

Such immunity covers even suits claiming a deprivation of constitutional rights. See Apton v. Wilson, 506 F.2d 83, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (“The common law immunity of judges is fully applicable in suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivations of constitutional rights.”) (citation omitted).

Section 1983 claims against a district clerk for acts tied to the judicial process and the clerk’s duties are subject to judicial or derived judicial immunity.

Enriquez v. Rodriguez-Mendoza · filed 2013-02-01

Thus she was entitled to judicial immunity or derived judicial immunity—a form of absolute immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976) (recognizing absolute immunity from suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Martinez v. Hardy, 864 S.W.2d 767, 772 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (district clerk protected by absolute immunity).

Judicial immunity protects judges from § 1983 suits alleging constitutional violations for acts taken within their judicial duties.

Ibn-Hameed v. Maddren · filed 2013-03-11

Such immunity covers even suits claiming a deprivation of constitutional rights. See Apton v. Wilson, 506 F.2d 83, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (“The common law immunity of judges is fully applicable in suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivations of constitutional rights.”) (citation omitted). As the judicial Defendants are immune from suit, a contemporaneous Order will issue granting the Motion to Dismiss.

Section 1983 judicial immunity protects advisory committee members from individual-capacity claims based on their role in selecting investigators for a court panel.

Bean v. District of Columbia Courts · filed 2013-03-14

As to plaintiff’s federal claim against Lewis and Ballester in their individual capacity, the Court in Roth found that individuals performing the substantially similar task of selecting “attorneys for inclusion on the panels” are immune from suit under § 1983, and also found that judicial immunity “extends to other officers of government whose duties are related to the judicial process.” Id. at 1287. Both Lewis and Ballester are being sued for acts they allegedly took as members of the Panel’s Advisory Committee. See Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Ballester Decl. ¶ 3. Hence, the Court finds that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their immunity defense.

A judge with subject matter jurisdiction has absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for actions taken in a judicial capacity.

Merritt v. Wooten · filed 2013-03-15

Moreover, we perceive no error in the district court’s conclusion that this case is frivolous because Judge Wooten had subject matter jurisdiction in the state court proceedings and was entitled to absolute immunity for her actions taken in her judicial capacity.

Section 1983 claims against judicial hearing officers for acts in their judicial capacity are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Administration · filed 2013-03-28

Adlerberg is protected from suit under § 1983 by absolute judicial immunity. ... Since all of Plaintiffs claims against Adlerberg involve alleged acts committed by Adlerberg in his judicial capacity, Plaintiffs claims against Adlerberg are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on judges for judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Missud v. State of Nevada · filed 2013-05-21

The district court properly dismissed Missud’s claims against various state and federal judges on the basis of absolute judicial immunity because Missud failed to allege facts tending to show that these judges acted “in the clear absence of jurisdiction” in issuing adverse rulings against him in his prior lawsuits.

Section 1983 bars prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Zeigler v. New York · filed 2013-06-07

Moreover, § 1983 provides that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, [prospective] injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” ... Since a declaratory decree was not violated and declaratory relief is available, plaintiffs’ attempt to seek prospective injunctive relief from Judge Tormey in any capacity is prohibited.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge whose challenged actions were not taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Douglas Cox, Sr. v. Reyes · filed 2013-06-12

Accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing them in a light most favorable to Cox, see In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007), the record does not reflect that Judge Reyes’s actions were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 & n.7 (1978); Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 523 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that Judge Reyes was entitled to judicial immunity and properly dismissed Cox’s § 1983 action.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity unless they act in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Micklas v. Phillips · filed 2013-06-21

As to Micklas’s claims against Judges Phillips, Hazouri, Gerber, and Conner, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed those claims on judicial immunity grounds. All actions taken by Judges Phillips, Hazouri, Gerber, and Conner were taken in their judicial capacity, and Micklas’s conclusory allegations that they acted without jurisdiction does not establish that they acted in the “clear absence of jurisdiction.” See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239.

Judges are immune from damages claims under § 1983 for judicial conduct performed within their jurisdiction.

Darrell Moore, Sr. v. Housing Authority of the City · filed 2013-08-05

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s claims against Judge White because Judge White is immune from suit for damages.

Judges are absolutely immune from liability under Section 1983 for judicial acts, even when accused of improper motives.

Miller v. Rico · filed 2013-09-27

Even where, as here, judges are accused of deciding a case due to improper motives, they are entitled to absolute immunity.

Absolute judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim does not protect a judge’s administrative acts.

Ratté v. Corrigan · filed 2013-11-26

Here, Hartsfield is not entitled to absolute judicial immunity because the acts complained of in the first amended complaint are not judicial acts.

Section 1983 claims may be dismissed when barred by limitations or absolute judicial immunity.

Haendel v. Pont · filed 2013-12-09

Haendel has not shown error in connection with the district court’s determinations that his suit was frivolous and should be dismissed because his claims against the defendants were barred by limitations and absolute judicial immunity, nor has he shown that the district court erred by concluding that the Texas Penal Code does not provide a private cause of action.

Judges are immune from liability under Section 1983 for judicial acts.

Todd v. Ichikawa · filed 2014-01-02

The district court properly dismissed Todd’s action because Judge Ichikawa is immune from liability.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim for a judge’s judicial acts when the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, even if the case had not yet been assigned to that judge.

William B. Cashion Nevada Spendthrift Trust v. Robert S. Vance, Jr. · filed 2014-01-13

The precedents of both the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit tie judicial immunity directly to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court, not the internal rules for assignment of its member judges.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Heath v. Justices of Supreme Court · filed 2014-01-16

Because all the actions taken by the judicial defendants and complained of by Heath were actions taken in their judicial capacity and in connection with Heath’s federal and state court proceedings, Heath’s claims are foreclosed by absolute immunity.

A judge’s immunity from suit defeats a § 1983 claim against that judge.

Coleman v. York County 16 Circuit · filed 2014-01-16

We conclude, however, that Coleman’s objections adequately preserved his claim against Judge Hayes, but that the claim fails because the judge is immune from suit.

Section 1983 claims can be barred by limitations and absolute judicial immunity.

Haendel v. Pont · filed 2014-01-20

Haendel has not shown error in connection with the district court’s determinations that his suit was frivolous and should be dismissed because his claims against the defendants were barred by limitations and absolute judicial immunity, nor has he shown that the district court erred by concluding that the Texas Penal Code does not provide a private cause of action.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against judges for their judicial acts.

Blount v. Sacramento County Superior Cou · filed 2014-02-28

The district court properly dismissed Blount’s claims against Judge Gillard on the basis of judicial immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (judges are absolutely immune for their judicial acts).

Judicial immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim against a judge unless the challenged acts were nonjudicial or taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Langston v. Orr · filed 2014-04-14

The district court properly dismissed Langston’s claims against Judge Orr in his individual capacity on the basis of judicial immunity because Langston failed to allege facts showing that Judge Orr took nonjudicial actions against him, or that Judge Orr’s judicial actions were taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Judicial immunity can bar a § 1983 action against a pro tem administrative law judge.

Hupp v. Freedman · filed 2014-04-14

The district court properly dismissed Hupp’s action because Freedman is entitled to judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity protects a Commissioner in Chancery from Section 1983 liability for actions within the scope of official duties.

Chien v. Ryan · filed 2014-04-21

While Grogan was a state actor, he is entitled to judicial immunity for actions taken within the scope of his official duties.

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 claims against a judge based on the judge’s rulings and sanctions in state court.

Bracci v. Becker · filed 2014-05-29

Although the district court found that Younger abstention precluded it from considering any of appellants’ claims that were being litigated in the state court proceeding (effectively all of their claims against Judge Becker), the court had already properly held that their claims concerning Judge Becker were barred by judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Section 1983 does not remove a judge’s absolute immunity for judicial acts taken in cases over which the judge has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Bright v. Gallia Cnty., Ohio · filed 2014-06-03

Judge Evans moved to dismiss Bright’s § 1983 suit against him on grounds of absolute judicial immunity from suit. The district court denied this request, a decision that was in error. Judge Evans’s actions fell short of expectations, but they were actions judicial in nature and taken in cases over which he had jurisdiction. As a result, he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against custody masters for acts performed in a judicial capacity.

Prater v. City of Philadelphia Family Court · filed 2014-06-16

Likewise, the custody masters, acting on a judicial matter in a capacity functionally equivalent to judges, were immune from suit.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a judge protected by judicial immunity.

Rouse v. Edmund Brown, Jr. · filed 2014-06-18

Dismissal of Rouse’s claim against Superior Court Judge Arthur Bocanegra was proper because he is immune from liability.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against a judge in her individual capacity when the plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that she acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Chaudry v. California Court of Appeal · filed 2014-07-03

The district court properly dismissed Chaudry’s claim for damages against defendant Haller in her individual capacity because Haller is entitled to judicial immunity. ... Contrary to Chaudry’s contention, Chaudry failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Haller acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the challenged acts were performed in a judicial capacity within their jurisdiction.

Pacherille v. Burns · filed 2014-07-03

Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that Judge Burns was performing a judicial act and acting in his judicial capacity. ... Thus, Judge Burns is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow a plaintiff to avoid judicial immunity by relying on a judge’s out-of-court acts that may have affected protected judicial acts.

King v. McCree · filed 2014-07-21

We hold that a defendant cannot avoid the bar of judicial immunity by relying on non-judicial, out-of-court acts that may have affected in-court, judicial acts.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against judges for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Madison v. Neifeild · filed 2014-08-25

To the extent that Madison sought to bring claims for monetary damages against Judges Neifeld and Shuter because they ordered her arrest following her failure to appear for a court date, they are protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity alone does not bar a request for declaratory relief under § 1983.

Norman v. TX Court of Criminal Appeals, et · filed 2014-09-22

He is correct that judicial immunity does not bar claims for injunctive or declaratory relief in § 1983 actions.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judge acting in her judicial capacity when declaratory relief remains available, she stayed within her jurisdiction, and no declaratory decree was violated.

Sargent v. Emons · filed 2014-11-07

Claims for injunctive relief under section 1983 against judges acting in their official capacity are therefore barred by absolute judicial immunity as long as declaratory relief remains available, the judge did not exceed her jurisdiction, and the plaintiff does not allege that a declaratory judgment was violated.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for an act in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Caldwell v. Pesce · filed 2015-02-03

Pursuant to the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 (“FICA”), Pub.L. No. 104-317, § 309(c), 110 Stat. 3847 (1996), injunctive relief is barred in any Section 1983 action “against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity ... unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity, unless they acted in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Lumpkins v. United States Government · filed 2015-02-23

Judges are absolutely immune from lawsuits arising from acts taken in their judicial capacity. ... Absolute immunity does not apply to actions “taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 13. ... Accordingly, the claims against the Judicial Defendants must, and will be, dismissed on the basis that those defendants are immune.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for judicial conduct unless they perform nonjudicial functions or act in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Goodwin v. Dawna Reeves · filed 2015-02-27

The district court properly dismissed Godwin’s federal claims because Judge Reeves is immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when performing nonjudicial functions or acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction).

Judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims for acts performed in their judicial duties.

Van Tassel v. Piccione · filed 2015-04-01

The District Court correctly determined that the state court judge was entitled to absolute immunity.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against a judge for actions taken in court.

Rollins v. Murphy · filed 2015-04-01

We can affirm the dismissal of the claims against the judge because they are necessarily blocked by judicial immunity.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for redress against a person who, under color of state law, deprives another of constitutional or statutory rights, subject to limits on injunctive relief against judicial officers.

Strawser v. Strange · filed 2015-04-23

Where the acts in question were ministerial, rather than judicial, there is no judicial immunity. See Id. The issuance of hiarriage licenses is a purely ministerial act. See Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, — So.3d -, -, -, 2015 WL 892752, *4, 8 (Ala., March 3, 2015) (discussing and referring to the probate judges’ “ministerial act of licensing marriages”). Neither Davis nor Russell is charged with discretion or judgment in carrying out this ministerial duty. Accordingly, the court finds Defendants are not entitled to judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for judicial acts, even when those acts fail to comply with a mandatory statute.

Ever Perez v. Gamez · filed 2015-07-20

While this failure to act by the judges appears contrary to the requirements of § 4412(a), that does not make them amenable to suit. A judicial error in interpreting or applying the requirements of a statute is still a “judicial act” entitled to immunity from suit.

Judges are immune from damages under § 1983 for judicial acts, even if those acts are alleged to be malicious or corrupt.

Epshteyn v. Charles Burr, II · filed 2015-07-27

While Epshteyn also argues that Judge Burr acted fraudulently or with bias in favor of the counterclaimant, even malicious or corrupt judicial actions do not deprive a judge of immunity.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against judicial officers for judicial conduct unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Quinata v. Nishimura · filed 2015-07-31

The district court properly dismissed Quinata’s claims against Judge Nishimura because Judge Nishimura is immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against judicial officers for their judicial conduct “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2006) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Section 1983 has an exception to judicial immunity concerning declaratory relief, but a plaintiff must allege a basis for that relief.

Mestman v. Escandon · filed 2015-08-17

Section 1983 contains an exception to judicial immunity concerning declaratory relief, but Mestman does not allege that any such basis for relief exists.

Section 1983 claims against an administrative law judge presiding over a state disciplinary hearing are barred by judicial immunity.

Dover v. Kathleen Haley, Jd · filed 2015-09-08

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Administrative Law Judge Barber on the basis of judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state judicial officers are barred by judicial immunity when the officers act within their judicial capacity and jurisdiction.

Ernst v. Hinchliff · filed 2015-09-08

State judicial officers are entitled to judicial immunity against claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as long as they are acting within them judicial capacity and do not act in “complete absence of all jurisdiction.”

Section 1983 permits damages suits against officials who violate federal rights, subject to judicial immunity for judges acting within their jurisdiction.

Omernick v. Doyle · filed 1977-01-27

In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), the Supreme Court held that a judge’s common law immunity from liability for damages for acts performed within his judicial jurisdiction applies also to suits against him for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... All of his actions were performed as part of his duties and in his capacity as United States district judge for the western district of Wisconsin. The defendant Doyle therefore is entitled to immunity from the plaintiff’s claims for damages relating to these actions.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Sanzaro v. Vega · filed 2015-12-16

The district court properly dismissed without leave to amend Sanzaro’s claims seeking damages and additional injunctive relief against Judge Vega because Judge Vega is immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“[I]n any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory ... decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006) (judges are entitled to immunity for damages for their judicial conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).

Section 1983 shields judges from liability unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Harris v. Gallagher · filed 2016-01-27

This suit is barred by absolute judicial immunity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967). Judges are immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability unless the judge acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 (1978).

Section 1983 permits declaratory relief against judicial officers for acts or omissions in their judicial capacity.

Legrand v. Nadeau · filed 2016-02-12

The language of the 1996 amendment to section 1983 demonstrates that, at a minimum, declaratory relief for actions or omissions by judicial officers is available under section 1983.

Judges are immune from damages under § 1983 for acts performed in their official capacities.

Edwin Jonas, III v. Waterman · filed 2016-03-23

The district court properly dismissed Jonas’s claims against Judge McNeil because Judge McNeil is entitled to judicial immunity.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Banks v. Geary County District Court · filed 2016-04-14

Pursuant to the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, § 1983 now provides that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is clear from the face of Mr. Banks’s pleadings that neither statutory exception applies.

Section 1983 generally bars injunctive relief against judicial officers for judicial acts unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Kennedy v. Janice Staples, William House, Mark Calhoon, Pam Fletcher, Bascom Bentley, Deborah Oaks-Evans, Cathy · filed 2011-03-01

This absolute judicial immunity extends to civil rights cases when a judge acts in a judicial capacity. Forrester v. White , 484 U.S. 219, 228–30 (1988). That holding was expanded by statute when Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, which amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to provide that, in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, even injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Section 1983 bars injunctive relief against judicial officers for their judicial conduct unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Bassel v. Miles · filed 2011-10-13

To the extent that Bassel’s claims are not barred under Rooker-Feldman, defendants are immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against judicial officers for their judicial conduct “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Sadoski, 435 F.3d at 1079 (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial ... conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, 302 F.3d 928, 957 n.27 (9th Cir. 2002) (“‘The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state . . . .’” (citation omitted)).

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an administrative law judge unless the judge acted outside a judicial role or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Read v. Haley · filed 2016-05-25

The district court properly dismissed Read’s claims against Administrative Law Judge Gutman on the basis of judicial immunity. Read failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Gutman took non-judicial actions against him, or that Gutman’s judicial actions were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

A judge sued under § 1983 has judicial immunity for removing a litigant from a courthouse when the act is performed in a judicial capacity and relates to an individual case.

Shtrauch v. Dowd · filed 2016-06-10

Dowd was entitled to judicial immunity because the act underlying Shtrauch’s claims – the removal of Shtrauch from the courthouse – was a function typically performed by a judge in his judicial capacity and in relation to an individual case.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a judge for judicial acts unless the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Gregory Kinnard, Jr. v. George · filed 2016-06-13

We agree with the District Court that Kinnard has failed to state a plausible claim against either of the defendants because his claims against Judges Carr and George are barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Judges are immune from suit under § 1983 for actions arising from their judicial acts.

Section 1983 claims against judges acting in their official judicial capacities are barred by judicial immunity, including claims for injunctive relief unless the statutory exception applies.

Allen "F" Calton v. Schiller · filed 2016-06-16

Here, the Judges enjoyed such immunity because Calton sued them in their official capacities. ... see Kennedy, 336 S.W.3d at 752 (“Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, which amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to provide that, in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, even injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”). ... We find that the trial court properly determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Calton’s claims against the Judges because judicial immunity barred these claims.

Judicial immunity does not protect the District of Columbia from a § 1983 claim brought against the District rather than a judge in a personal capacity.

Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2016-06-27

But the Amended Complaint asserts claims against the District of Columbia, not any state actor in a personal capacity, and thus this defense is not available to the defendant.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages claims against judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Kaplan v. Miller · filed 2016-06-29

Kaplan’s claims against Judge Miller are indisputably meritless, as “judges are immune from suit under section 1983 for monetary damages arising from their judicial acts.” Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000).

Section 1983 claims against a judge are barred by absolute judicial immunity for rulings made in the judge's judicial capacity.

Goldbatt v. Doerty · filed 2013-01-03

The district court properly dismissed Goldblatt’s claims regarding defendant’s alleged denial of ADA accommodations because they arose out of defendant’s rulings in his capacity as a judge presiding over a state court family law proceeding, and, therefore, were barred by absolute judicial immunity.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity, including reassigning a case.

Brown v. Chappelle · filed 2016-08-03

As the district court ably explained, Defendant is absolutely immune from damages under § 1983 because his transfer of Plaintiff’s state-court case to another judge was an action performed in his judicial capacity.

Judges acting as adjudicators are not proper defendants in a § 1983 action and are protected by judicial immunity.

Cunningham v. Coombs · filed 2016-08-04

The district court properly dismissed Cunningham’s claims against Judge Cheng, and Justices Kline and Richman, on the basis of judicial immunity and because they are not proper parties under § 1983.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims for their judicial acts unless they act outside their judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Smith v. Glanz · filed 2016-10-04

To the extent Smith’s complaint asserted claims against Moody under § 1983, we conclude that Moody was entitled to immunity for her judicial acts.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Williams v. Judge Elizabeth A. Scherer · filed 2016-10-18

A judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for damages based on judicial acts, unless the judge acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a judge for acts taken in a judicial capacity.

Bennett v. Matthews · filed 2016-10-25

The Court presumes that plaintiff proceeds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismisses the complaint because it fails to state a claim upon Which relief can be granted Judge Gosnell enjoys absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts taken in his judicial capacity.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against judges for acts performed in their official capacities.

Barker v. Tony Agbayani, Jr. · filed 2016-11-03

Dismissal of Barker’s action was proper because Judge Agbayani, Jr. was entitled to judicial immunity.