42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 claims against agency officials are barred when judicial immunity protects their conduct.

Jones v. Edmund Brown, Jr. · filed 2016-11-07

The district court properly dismissed Jones’ claims against defendant Caplane as barred by judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 damages claims based on judicial acts within their subject matter jurisdiction.

Emerson v. O'connor · filed 2017-01-05

A judge is absolutely immune from a suit for money damages and is precluded from civil liability in cases in which the suit is based on judicial acts taken within the judge's subject matter jurisdiction, even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously or corruptly. ... Defendants’ ... acts of suggesting legal representation to Emerson and discussing plea offers are judicial acts in the course of an adjudication—a function normally performed by a judge as required by law.

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

Laverpool v. Taylor Bean & Whitaker Reo LLC · filed 2017-01-10

Therefore, not only does this Court lack jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Seeliger under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but his claims against Judge Seeliger are also barred by judicial immunity.

A judge is absolutely immune from a § 1983 damages suit for judicial acts unless the judge acts without jurisdiction.

Overille Thompson, Jr. v. Brown · filed 2017-02-02

A judge is absolutely immune from a suit for damages except for actions not taken in a judicial capacity or actions taken in the absence of all jurisdiction. ... The district court did not err in determining that Judge Brown was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Judges and magistrates are immune from § 1983 claims for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Darling v. Falls · filed 2017-02-17

It is well settled that “judges are absolutely immune from suit for deprivation of civil rights brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” ... Thus, the Court concludes that judicial' immunity bars Plaintiffs claims against the Judicial Defendants.

Judicial immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a judge when the complaint alleges no facts showing that the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Taal v. St. Mary's Bank, et al. · filed 2017-02-14

But, he alleges no facts showing that Judge Abramson acted in a clear absence of all jurisdiction, and no facts that would support a reasonable inference to that effect. Thus, Judge Abramson is entitled to judicial immunity. That, in turn, entitles her to the dismissal of Taal’s claims against her.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages liability under § 1983 for acts performed in their judicial capacities.

Hartz v. Campbell · filed 2017-02-28

Hartz’s claim against Judge Debenham is likewise barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980) (observing that “judges defending against § 1983 actions enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts performed in their judicial capacities” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Section 1983 claims against a judge are barred by absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts taken within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Horowitz v. Mason · filed 2017-03-10

We agree with the district court that Judge Mason was entitled to absolute judicial immunity, as none of the conduct about which the Horowitzes complain constituted a nonjudicial action or an action taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against state judges arising from their judicial acts.

Mohiuddin v. Higa · filed 2017-03-16

The district court properly dismissed Mohiuddin’s claims against Judge Higa on the basis of judicial immunity because the claims arose out of Judge Higa’s judicial acts.

Judges are generally immune from Section 1983 damages claims for acts performed in their judicial capacities, even when they are elected.

Nyabwa v. Keller · filed 2017-04-26

In his complaint, Nyabwa challenged the defendants’ actions or inactions in their judicial capacities. Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity from Nyabwa’s claims for damages.

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

Diaz v. King · filed 2017-04-27

And “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable,” § 1983 does not allow injunctive relief against a judge acting in his judicial capacity.

Judicial immunity does not justify dismissing a § 1983 complaint seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief.

Rolle v. Girardi · filed 2017-04-28

Because Rolle sought only injunctive and declaratory relief, the district court erred in dismissing on the basis of judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from damages under § 1983 for judicial acts, even when the plaintiff alleges bad faith or malice.

Myrick v. Greenwood · filed 2017-05-05

Myrick contends that the judges acted in bad faith, but “judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice”.

Judges are immune from damages claims under Section 1983 for acts taken in their judicial role, even when the claims allege a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Graves v. Callahan · filed 2017-05-30

Such immunity even covers 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.”). As the Graveses here complain solely of acts taken by Judge Callahan in her judicial role, and as they seek money damages (as opposed to some type of injunctive or declaratory relief), their suit cannot survive.

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

Keliihuluhulu v. Strance · filed 2017-06-05

Nevertheless, the district court properly dismissed Keliihuluhulu’s action as barred by judicial immunity.

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

Patel v. Decarolis · filed 2017-07-03

The district court properly dismissed Patel’s damages claims against Judge Pacheco on the basis of judicial immunity because the claims arose out of Judge Pacheco’s judicial acts.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Creech v. Pater · filed 2017-07-13

Judicial immunity independently bars the claim that Judge Pater violated Creech’s substantive due process rights because when Judge Pater retroactively signed the command page of the warrant, he did so in his judicial capacity and within his jurisdiction.

Section 1983 damages claims against a judge are barred by absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in a judicial capacity unless the judge acted in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Pilot v. Kollar-Kotelly · filed 2017-07-18

Pilot’s 94-page complaint raises a series of largely incomprehensible claims, but it appears at bottom to seek a declaratory judgment vacating the transfer order and money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Finally, the case must be dismissed on immunity grounds. As to the claims against Judge Kollar-Kotelly, “[j]udges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in [their] judicial capacity, unless [the] actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” ... Therefore, Judge Kollar-Kotelly enjoys absolute immunity and the Court will accordingly dismiss the claims against her.

A judge has absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim for judicial acts unless she acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Wright-Bolton v. Andress-Tobiasson · filed 2017-08-17

A judge enjoys total immunity from suit for her actions except in two instances: when the judge’s actions are “nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity[,]” or when the judge’s actions, “though judicial in nature, [are] taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” ... Thus, we find that Judge Andress-Tobiasson’s actions were taken in her judicial capacity. ... We find that Judge Andress-Tobiasson did not act in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

Judges and court personnel are immune from § 1983 claims for judicial acts and acts taken under a judge’s instructions, respectively.

Jaye v. Attorney General New Jersey · filed 2017-08-22

In addition, the named judges (and members of their staff and court personnel) are immune from suit to the extent they were sued in their individual and official capacities. ... Jaye did not set forth information which might suggest that the judges in her cases acted in the absence of all jurisdiction. Nor did she set forth information which might show that court personnel acted contrary to judicial instruction.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against judicial officers for acts taken in a judicial capacity.

Darulis v. San Diego Police Officer Gotts · filed 2017-10-04

The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant Miesfeld (erroneously sued as “Miefeld”) on the basis of judicial immunity because the challenged action was taken in Miesfeld’s judicial capacity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a judge for acts performed in a judicial capacity within the judge’s jurisdiction, even when the plaintiff alleges a conspiracy.

T.B. Ellington v. Hon. Jennifer H. Sibum · filed 2017-10-11

Judge Sibum acted within her judicial capacity because the actions alleged were conducted within her subject matter jurisdiction and were the type normally performed by a judge. Accordingly, the trial court properly sustained Judge Sibum’s Preliminary Objections on the basis of judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge for judicial acts unless the judge acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Phan v. Cross · filed 2017-11-06

Immunity is only overcome in two situations: (1) when judges act outside their official capacity, or (2) when they act within their official capacity but do so “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”

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

Nezbeda v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp. · filed 2017-11-20

Because Plaintiffs' allegations all relate to acts taken by ... Judge Leonard in his judicial capacity, Plaintiffs' claims are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against a judge for actions taken in a judicial capacity.

Rosebar v. Hogan · filed 2017-12-04

The Rosebars brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Namea' Agenls ofFed. Bureau ofNarcotz`cS, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). ... Plaintiffs’ claims against Judge Hogan arise from actions taken in his judicial capacity. ... Absolute judicial immunity protects Judge Hogan from suit.

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

Shao v. Wang · filed 2017-12-21

The district court properly dismissed Shao’s claims against defendants who are judges as barred by judicial immunity. ... see also 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against a judicial officer “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”).

Section 1983 claims against judges performing judicial functions are barred by judicial immunity.

Palomarez v. Young · filed 2018-01-03

The doctrine of judicial immunity bars suits against judges performing judicial functions.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a judge for issuing a protective order as part of the judge’s adjudicative duties.

Zenon v. Guzman · filed 2018-01-08

Under this line of authority, Defendant is clearly immune from suit in this court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims are subject to judicial immunity for acts within a judge’s judicial role.

Rowan B. v. State of Alaska · filed 2018-01-10

Judicial immunity applies to § 1983 claims, and the claims against Judge Kristiansen and the Alaska Court System were correctly dismissed.

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

Libertarian Party of Erie Cnty. v. Cuomo · filed 2018-01-10

Moreover, "[t]he 1996 Congressional amendments to § 1983 bar injunctive relief, unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." ... Based on well-established law, Judges Kehoe and Boller were acting in their judicial capacities when they ruled on Cuthbert and Murtari's firearms license applications.

A judge is immune from a Section 1983 suit for damages and legal fees when the challenged acts were judicial and within the judge’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Peterson v. Jaynes · filed 2018-01-24

Thus, Judge Jaynes is immune to Mr. Peterson’s suit for damages and legal fees.

Judicial immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint permits an inference that the judge’s challenged conduct was not a judicial act.

Jose Cossio, Jr. v. Tourtelot · filed 2018-03-12

The first count of his amended complaint expressly purports to be brought under § 1983 and is against all “Defendants.” ... Because it is not clear from the face of the complaint that Judge Tourtelot has judicial immunity from Cossio’s federal claims, we VACATE the district court’s judgment for Judge Tourtelot and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Section 1983 claims against a state judge are barred by judicial immunity unless the judge took non-judicial actions or acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Calvin v. Chang · filed 2018-03-28

More importantly, she fails to identify facts sufficient to establish that the state-court judge lost judicial immunity, either by taking non-judicial actions or by taking actions “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction,” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam).

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Burdick v. Town of Schroeppel · filed 2018-04-04

Judges acting in their judicial capacity are absolutely immune from suit, even where the plaintiff asserts constitutional violations under § 1983.

Section 1983 damages claims against an administrative law judge are barred by absolute immunity when the challenged conduct occurs in a judicial capacity.

Berry v. Nolan · filed 2018-05-03

These facts support that Berry “dealt with [Nolan] in his judicial capacity,” and Nolan is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the claims concern their judicial acts.

Johnson v. Koehler · filed 2018-05-09

We agree with the District Court’s analysis of this case. As the District Court explained, Johnson’s § 1983 claims against the various judges fail because “[a] judicial officer in the performance of his duties has absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for his judicial acts.”

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity when they concern acts taken in a judicial capacity.

Abbott v. Cornwell II · filed 2018-07-20

Abbott only complains about acts Judge Rigby took in her judicial capacity, and thus, his claims are barred by judicial immunity.

A state judge is immune from § 1983 liability for judicial acts unless the judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Alvis v. Schilling · filed 2018-07-31

We therefore rule that any error in Schilling’s analysis of the scope of his jurisdiction does not deprive him of immunity from suit.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

O'Callaghan v. Honorable X · filed 2018-08-28

Defendant Judges are absolutely immune from liability for the acts about which O’Callaghan complains. The actions the judges took in managing his state-court lawsuit and their rulings during those proceedings are plainly judicial acts because they involved resolving case-related disputes, including discovery issues, and O’Callaghan has set forth no facts showing Defendant Judges acted in clear absence of jurisdiction.

Absolute judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity bar § 1983 claims based on judicial acts and acts court personnel perform at a judge’s direction as part of the judicial process.

WITHERS v. SCHROEDER · filed 2018-09-10

Because judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity are absolute, appellee’s claims pursuant to § 1983 cannot be sustained.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for acts taken to maintain courtroom order, even when those acts are unlawful.

Delvon L. King v. Honorable Robert C. Nalley · filed 2018-09-10

We agree with the district court that, while Judge’s Nalley’s actions were outrageous and unlawful, the judge was performing the judicial act of maintaining order in the courtroom when he directed the activation of the stun-cuff. He is therefore entitled to judicial immunity, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

A court clerk who acts under a judge’s direct order has absolute judicial immunity from a Section 1983 claim for damages.

Burlison v. Angus · filed 2018-09-11

Angus, as a deputy clerk of court, was entitled to absolute judicial immunity on Burlison’s claim for money damages, because, in issuing the challenged writ of possession in favor of Burlison’s landlords, she was following a direct order of a Marion County, Florida, judge.

Judicial immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against a judge for acts performed in a judicial capacity.

Berberich v. Kishner · filed 2018-09-20

The district court properly dismissed Berberich’s action because Judge Kishner is entitled to judicial immunity.

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

Rahimi v. Sweat · filed 2018-10-16

However, we are convinced that defendant Judge McCotter is immune from injunctive relief under Section 1983, and defendants Sweat and King did not deprive Dr. Rahimi of a property interest and therefore cannot be liable.

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

Jung v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2018-12-19

Additionally, “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. ... As discussed above, these are judicial acts that trigger absolute immunity. Therefore, this Court dismisses Jung’s claims against Pennsylvania state Judges Arthur Zulick, David Wlliamson, Jennifer Sibum, Russell Shurtleff, and Gregory Chelak; and Bankruptcy Judge John Thomas.

Section 1983 does not remove judicial immunity for a magistrate’s judicial acts within the magistrate’s jurisdiction.

Davis v. Flanigan · filed 2019-01-07

This judicial immunity applies even in suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for judicial acts, regardless of the severity of an alleged error.

Kupsky v. Outagamie County · filed 2019-01-09

Whether a judge has absolute immunity turns on whether the act in question was judicial in nature; the severity of any possible error is irrelevant. ... Kupsky does not argue, nor could he, that the acceptance of his no-contest plea is not a “function normally performed by a judge.”

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a judge for judicial acts protected by absolute immunity.

Walsh v. Walsh · filed 2019-02-13

First, James’s § 1983 claim against Judge Doran fails because “[a] judicial officer in the performance of his duties has absolute immunity from suit and will not be liable for his judicial acts.”

A judge retains immunity from a § 1983 claim for judicial acts allegedly taken in violation of an automatic bankruptcy stay when the judge had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.

Agrawal v. Courts of Oklahoma · filed 2019-03-12

But an automatic bankruptcy stay did not deprive Judge Ogden of subject-matter jurisdiction, broadly construed, over the state-court case. Thus, even were Judge Ogden to take action in violation of the stay, his act would not be in a clear absence ... of all jurisdiction, and he would therefore still be immune from suit.

Section 1983 does not allow monetary relief against a judge protected by judicial immunity.

Reves v. Gentry · filed 2019-03-22

Thus, the Court agrees with Judge Bryant’s finding that Plaintiff’s claim against Judge Cooper fails because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief or, alternatively, that the claim should be dismissed as frivolous.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Phan v. Babcock · filed 2019-04-19

Therefore, Judges Babcock and Gallagher are entitled to absolute immunity in their handling of Phan’s cases before them and Phan’s claims against them are legally frivolous.

State judicial officers are immune from § 1983 claims for acts within their judicial capacity unless they act in complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Scheffler v. New Hope, City of · filed 2019-05-09

State judicial officers are entitled to judicial immunity against claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as long as they are acting within their judicial capacity and do not act in “complete absence of all jurisdiction.” ... Consequently, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Brisbois that the Judicial Defendants are entitled to immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge unless the challenged conduct was nonjudicial or taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

HLV, LLC v. Van Buren Cty. · filed 2019-05-28

HLV has not shown that Hamre’s conduct falls within either of the two narrow exceptions to the general presumption of judicial immunity. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of HLV’s claims against Hamre.

A judge has absolute immunity from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts taken within the court’s jurisdiction.

CATALANO v. CITY OF TRENTON · filed 2019-05-31

Here, because Plaintiff’s allegations against Judge McKithen relate to the manner in which the trial of Plaintiff’s parking violation was conducted, they are barred by judicial immunity. ... Thus, Judge McKithen has absolute judicial immunity in this action, and Plaintiff’s claims against him are, therefore, dismissed.

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.

Juan Carlos Velasquez Andres v. Judge Janice Brustares Keyser · filed 2019-06-14

The text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 makes clear immunity applies to most suits brought for injunctive relief for “an act or omission taken in [a judicial] officer’s judicial capacity.” Specifically, it provides, “injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”

Judicial immunity shields a judge from Section 1983 claims based on rulings made in her judicial capacity.

Oxman v. Drager · filed 2019-06-19

Therefore, Justice Drager’s alleged conduct was consistent with her judiciary duties, and Plaintiff's argument lacks merit as a matter of law.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims for judicial acts within their jurisdiction, even if those acts are alleged to be malicious or corrupt.

Clark v. Deskins · filed 2019-06-27

This Court further agrees with the PF&R that Defendant is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. “[J]udges are absolutely immune from suit for a deprivation of civil rights brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, even if such acts were allegedly done either maliciously or corruptly.”

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for their judicial actions.

Harden v. Schroeder · filed 2019-07-01

And in any event, Judge Schroeder is absolutely immune for his judicial actions.

Judicial or quasi-judicial immunity can bar a Section 1983 claim.

Carter v. Inslee · filed 2019-07-19

The district court properly dismissed Carter’s action because his claims fail to state a plausible claim, or are barred by judicial or quasi-judicial immunity, or are time-barred.

Judges are immune from § 1983 suits for judicial acts within their jurisdiction, even if those acts were erroneous or malicious.

Gladden v. Reigh · filed 2019-07-26

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for judicial acts.

Section 1983 does not permit monetary damages claims against state court judges for actions taken in their judicial capacity unless they act in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Archuleta-Allodial v. Chavez · filed 2019-07-29

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because “state court judges are absolutely immune from monetary damages claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity, unless the actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Sawyer v. Gorman, 317 F. App’x 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978) (articulating broad immunity rule that a “judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”).

Section 1983 bars damages claims against state judges for acts committed within their official duties.

Sears v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department · filed 2019-08-01

“A state court judge is absolutely immune from damages actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts committed within the course of his official duties.” ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Judge Kephart, and amendment would likely be futile.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts unless those acts are taken in clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Brooks v. Wanker · filed 2019-08-06

A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be maintained against a government official in her individual capacity who, under color of law, deprives an individual of constitutional rights. ... Absolute immunity applies to judges performing “judicial acts.” ... She therefore is entitled to absolute judicial immunity, so I grant her motion to dismiss and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to her.

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

Larios v. State · filed 2019-08-07

The judges who are presiding over Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings are immune from suit for their actions falling within their jurisdiction, including their decisions regarding Plaintiff’s right to represent herself and the reliability of evidence being presented in the case. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the judges under the doctrine of 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.

Andrews v. Green · filed 2019-08-07

In addition, as amended in 1996, §1983 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. ... The doctrine of judicial immunity therefore applies, and the Court dismisses Judge Clynes from the action.

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 claims against a judge for acts performed in a judicial capacity.

Staska v. Stecker · filed 2019-08-12

Judicial immunity extends to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 suits for actions taken in their judicial capacity.

Thompson v. Nurse Kelly Hinely · filed 2019-08-13

Moreover, judges are immune from suit for any actions taken in their judicial capacity.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity when they act within their judicial jurisdiction.

Oliver v. Carr · filed 2019-08-21

Additionally, Judges enjoy absolute immunity from Section 1983 suits for damages when they act within their judicial jurisdiction.

Section 1983 limits injunctive relief against a judicial officer for acts taken in a judicial capacity to cases where a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Ward v. Child Protection Services · filed 2019-09-10

The Wards do not allege any nonjudicial actions or judicial actions taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction, or any violations of declaratory decrees or the unavailability of declaratory relief.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged acts are judicial in nature and within their jurisdiction.

Asensio v. DiFiore · filed 2019-09-13

Asensio’s claims against Judge Fasanya are thus dismissed as barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, as are Asensio’s claims against Judge DiFiore.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

Smith v. Satterfield · filed 2019-09-17

Because Judge Satterfield’s allegedly wrongful acts were done within his judicial capacity and with proper jurisdiction, he is absolutely immune from suit.

Judges are absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims based on judicial actions.

Jones v. State of South Carolina, The · filed 2019-09-18

Judge Cothran’s decision to grant summary judgment is a quintessential judicial action and, as such, is entitled to absolute immunity.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims challenging their judicial actions.

Sanders v. Childs · filed 2019-09-20

Judges Childs and Gossett have absolute judicial immunity, and no set of facts would allow a plaintiff to sue them for judicial actions.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities.

Stark v. Cooper · filed 2019-09-24

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Justice Cooper must be dismissed because judges are absolutely immune from suit for damages for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities.

Judicial officers involved in an eviction may be immune from suit under § 1983.

People of Mississippi ex rel. Giles v. Thomas · filed 1972-07-06

The settlement agreement may not have extended to Giles’s possible claims against the Justice of the Peace, the Sheriff, and their employees, but the trial court was correct in ruling that those defendants were immune *160from suit as judicial officers under the circumstances of this case.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a judge for acts performed within judicial discretion.

Muller v. Wachtel · filed 1972-07-24

By the same token, Justice Reilly, who, under common law, is immune from liability for acts performed within his judicial discretion, is also immune under the Civil Rights Act. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). Since plaintiff makes no allegation that Justice Reilly committed any acts beyond his judicial discretion, the action must also be dismissed as against him.

Judges are absolutely immune from Section 1983 claims for judicial acts.

Foster v. Ward · filed 2003-11-03

Judge Ward is absolutely immune from suit, and the Fosters' ... judicial immunity is without merit.

Conclusory, unsupported allegations do not show that a judge acted outside her customary judicial duties for purposes of a Section 1983 claim.

Lyles v. Lemmon · filed 2006-01-30

Accordingly, any challenge to the reasons for the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit has been abandoned. ... Moreover, Lyles’s conclusory and unsupported allegations on appeal do not demonstrate that any action taken by Judge Lemmon in connection with a previous civil case filed by Lyles ... against Seacor Marine Inc. was outside the scope of her customary judicial duties.

Judges are absolutely immune from damages under § 1983 for judicial acts within their subject-matter jurisdiction.

Cotten v. Oda · filed 2019-09-29

Here, the acts of which Plaintiff complains are quite clearly judicial and adjudicative. Plaintiff’s Objections, therefore, are not well-taken.

Section 1983 claims against judges for their traditional adjudicatory acts are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

Bauersachs v. Englander · filed 2019-10-04

Here, where Plaintiffs’ claims are premised on the traditional adjudicatory functions of Defendants, who were acting in their capacities as a panel of Associate Justices of the Appeals Court, those claims are also barred by absolute judicial immunity.

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

Raghavendra v. Crotty · filed 2019-10-07

“A judge defending against a section 1983 suit is entitled to absolute immunity from damages for actions performed in his judicial capacity.” ... Thus, absolute judicial immunity precludes Plaintiff’s damages claims against Judge Crotty.

State court judges and staff involved in the judicial process are immune from § 1983 damages claims; prospective relief requires an alleged ongoing federal violation.

Page v. Albuquerque Municipal Mental Health Court · filed 2019-10-08

The Court construes the Complaint as a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights. ... Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because Defendants are state court judges and staff involved in the judicial process, and Plaintiff has not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law and is not seeking prospective relief.

Judges are generally immune from § 1983 damages claims for their judicial actions.

Koger v. Richardson · filed 2019-10-10

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are hereby dismissed as frivolous because the defendants are entitled to judicial immunity.

A state court judge is absolutely immune from damages under § 1983 for judicial acts committed within her jurisdiction.

MEDARIS v. MAGNUS-STINSON · filed 2019-10-11

While Mr. Medaris’s allegation of constitutional violations gives this Court jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the facts alleged are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. ... Moreover, a state court judge is absolutely immune from civil damages liability for judicial acts committed in the exercise of her jurisdiction.

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

Caldwell v. Judge Doris L. Downs · filed 2019-10-15

Judges have absolute immunity from liability under § 1983 for actions performed in their judicial capacity, provided the actions are not done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

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

Ray v. Hammond · filed 2019-10-18

Therefore, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants because they are entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff’s suit under federal law based on their judicial actions.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 suits against judges for their judicial acts unless they act outside their judicial role or in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Meyers v. Manis · filed 2019-10-23

Judicial immunity is an absolute defense, not merely to liability or damages, but a defense to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 suits against judges for judicial acts unless they acted outside their judicial role or in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Meyers v. Ely · filed 2019-10-23

Judicial immunity is an absolute defense, not merely to liability or damages, but a defense to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Tyrrell v. Cotton · filed 2019-10-23

As amended, section 1983 now precludes injunctive relief 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Here, Plaintiff does not allege that declaratory relief was unavailable or that a declaratory decree was violated.

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

EDWARDS v. BARANOSKI · filed 2019-10-24

Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from civil rights claims that are based on acts or omissions taken in their judicial capacity, so long as they do not act in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

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

Clauso v. Solomon · filed 2019-10-29

Judges are immune from suit under § 1983 “for monetary damages arising from their judicial acts.”

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

Bush v. District of Columbia · filed 2019-10-29

Judges are absolutely immune from suits for money damages for “all actions taken in the judge's judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”

Judges are immune from Section 1983 damages claims for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction, even if those acts were erroneous.

Deem v. DiMella-Deem · filed 2019-10-30

Because Judge Gordon‐Oliver was thus clearly entitled to judicial immunity, the district court did not err in sua sponte dismissing the claims against her as frivolous.

Judges and magistrates have absolute judicial immunity from Section 1983 suits for acts within their judicial roles.

Blue v. Ryan · filed 2019-10-31

Defendant judges and magistrates are entitled to judicial immunity. Absolute judicial immunity attaches where a judicial officer acts in his or her official judicial capacity, that is, a function normally performed by a judge.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims for acts performed in their judicial capacity in cases over which they have jurisdiction.

McCree v. Griffin (INMATE 1) · filed 2019-11-05

However, Judge Griffin entered the orders in a state civil action over which he had jurisdiction and, as such, is therefore entitled to absolute immunity.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from their judicial acts.

Parks v. White · filed 2019-11-08

Furthermore, as a judge, Defendant Glenn has absolute immunity from suit for claims arising from his judicial acts.

Workers’ compensation board commissioners have absolute judicial immunity from § 1983 claims arising from their judicial acts, including decisions on benefits and venue.

Levitant v. Workers Compensation Board of the State of New York · filed 2019-11-08

These actions—denying Levitant’s outstanding claims, including his request to change venue, and requiring labor market attachment—are undoubtedly judicial in nature. The Court therefore denies Levitant’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s initial determination regarding absolute judicial immunity.

State judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims arising from their judicial acts.

Ibeabuchi v. Thumma · filed 2018-10-31

The district court properly dismissed Ibeabuchi’s action against Judge Thumma on the basis of absolute judicial immunity because the claims arise out of Judge Thumma’s judicial acts.

Judges are immune from § 1983 suits challenging actions taken in their adjudicative capacity.

Zenon v. Guzman · filed 2019-05-15

Because we hold that the state court judge's actions are shielded from this attack by the doctrine of judicial immunity, we affirm.

Judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims for judicial acts taken within their court’s jurisdiction.

Cox v. Dodson · filed 2019-11-18

Because Judge Dodson acted within his judicial capacity and within his court’s proper jurisdiction, he is granted absolute immunity from civil suit as to plaintiff’s claims against him.

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

Saba v. Houle · filed 2019-11-20

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Judge Houle as barred by absolute immunity. 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”); 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).

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a judge for judicial acts performed within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Cox v. Dewly · filed 2019-11-21

These actions were taken in his judicial capacity and were within his jurisdiction. Dewly is entitled to absolute immunity.

A judge is immune from a § 1983 claim for judicial acts unless the judge acted in the absence of all jurisdiction.

Stewart bey v. Brady · filed 2019-11-22

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Stewart Bey cannot sue the defendants he has named in his complaint. ... Because the doctrine of judicial immunity applies, Stewart Bey cannot proceed on his claim against Judge Brady.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for acts taken within their judicial responsibilities.

Hudson v. Forman · filed 2019-11-25

Judge Forman’s decisions are judicial acts for which he is immune from suit under § 1983.

Judges generally cannot be sued for damages under § 1983 for judicial acts, even when alleged to have acted maliciously or corruptly.

Cox v. Ross · filed 2019-12-04

The complaint is frivolous because judges generally cannot be sued for monetary relief based on purported judicial misconduct, even if the judge is alleged to have acted maliciously or corruptly.

Section 1983 generally does not permit damages against a judge for judicial acts taken within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Cox v. Autrey · filed 2019-12-04

The complaint is frivolous because judges generally cannot be sued for monetary relief based on alleged judicial misconduct, and nothing in the instant complaint establishes that Judge Autrey acted in the absence of jurisdiction or outside his judicial capacity.

Section 1983 permits injunctive relief against a judicial officer only if a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Derrick v. Isabella County Trial Court · filed 2019-12-06

Injunctive relief against a judicial officer is also foreclosed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for judicial acts taken within their courts’ jurisdiction.

(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Placerville Self Storage · filed 2019-12-10

Based on the documents attached to the first amended complaint, it appears plaintiff seeks monetary relief from both state court judges for actions taken within their jurisdiction—handling an unlawful detainer and/or criminal matter. Such actions are quintessential examples of judicial acts. Therefore, the defendant judges are immune from this suit, “however erroneous the act[s] may have been.” Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075.

Section 1983 judicial immunity protects a state court judge from civil liability for actions taken in a judicial role.

Gabriel v. El Paso Combined Courts · filed 2019-12-17

Judge Shakes, a state court judge alleged to have been acting in that capacity, is immune from civil liability for the performance of all actions taken in that role.

Section 1983 generally does not allow damages claims against judges for judicial acts, even when they are alleged to have acted maliciously or corruptly.

Cox v. Limbaugh · filed 2019-12-18

The complaint is frivolous because judges generally cannot be sued for monetary relief based on purported judicial misconduct, even if the judge is alleged to have acted maliciously or corruptly.

Section 1983 claims against a judge for acts taken in her judicial capacity are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

GARVIN v. PEREZ · filed 2019-12-18

Mr. Garvin’s pleadings are vague, but it is apparent that his civil rights claims against Judge Perez are based on acts she took in her judicial capacity while presiding over criminal matters in which Garvin was a defendant. Garvin’s claims therefore lack a legal basis because Judge Perez is entitled to absolute immunity from those claims.

A judge is immune from a § 1983 claim for monetary damages arising from sentencing performed in a judicial capacity and within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Hetrick v. Blubaugh · filed 2019-12-30

There is no doubt that sentencing Plaintiff was a judicial act and that Judge Blubaugh was acting within his jurisdiction in doing so. Accordingly, Judge Blubaugh is absolutely immune from liability. Because Judge Blubaugh is clearly immune from liability in this case, Plaintiff may not maintain an action for monetary damages against him.

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

Kornafel v. Del Chevrolet · filed 2020-01-02

Kornafel also has shown no error in the District Court’s ruling that Judge MacElree is immune from suit. Although “absolute judicial immunity extends only to claims for damages,” Larsen v. Senate of the Commonwealth, 152 F.3d 240, 249 (3d Cir. 1998), to the extent Kornafel seeks injunctive relief, “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 (1996). Kornafel does not contend that this exception applies.

Section 1983 does not permit a damages claim against a judge for judicial acts taken within the judge’s jurisdiction.

LEWIS v. PAONE · filed 2020-01-10

Because Judge Paone’s actions were judicial in nature and not taken in the absence of jurisdiction, he is entitled to immunity.

Judicial immunity bars recovery under § 1983 for a judge’s judicial acts unless the judge acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Metzger v. Dalton · filed 2020-01-13

As previously stated, judicial immunity bars plaintiff’s recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the judges’ actions were non-judicial in nature, or were taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

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

Alger v. McDowell · filed 2020-01-14

The 1996 amendments to § 1983 extended absolute immunity for state judicial personnel to requests for injunctive or equitable relief.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against state judges for judicial acts taken within their courts’ jurisdiction.

(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Placerville Self Storage · filed 2020-01-15

It appears plaintiff seeks monetary relief from both state court judges for actions taken within their jurisdiction—handling an unlawful detainer and/or criminal matter. Such actions are quintessential examples of judicial acts. Therefore, the defendant judges are immune from this suit, “however erroneous the act[s] may have been.”

Section 1983 generally bars prospective injunctive relief against state judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Morelli v. Hyman · filed 2020-01-16

Further, except in narrow circumstances not applicable here, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 precludes prospective injunctive relief against state judges on account of their judicial acts.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for decisions made while presiding over cases.

Hudson v. Forman · filed 2020-01-17

The judges’ decisions are therefore judicial acts for which they are immune from suit under § 1983.

Judges are immune from § 1983 suits arising from acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Chancellor Fragoso v. Pelletier · filed 2020-01-22

Construed liberally, this:is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Mr. Fragoso’s suit arises from actions taken by Judge Pelletier in her capacity as a judge, Judge Pelletier is immune from the suit.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims arising from their judicial actions.

Dugas v. The United States Of America · filed 2020-01-31

Plaintiff primarily attacks the decisions rendered by both Judge Ellington and Judge Tagle in Plaintiff's prior cases. These defendants, however, are entitled to absolute judicial immunity with respect to their judicial actions.

A state judge is immune from liability under § 1983 for judicial acts unless they were taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Halprin v. Henry · filed 2020-02-05

Next, plaintiff’s claims against the defendant judge are barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. This immunity protects a state judge from liability under § 1983 unless the judicial acts were taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims based solely on their judicial acts.

Rector, Jr. v. Campanella · filed 2020-02-06

Moreover, judges being sued solely for judicial acts are protected by absolute judicial immunity.

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

Theriot v. U.S. District Court Judges of Michigan · filed 2020-02-06

Mr. Theriot can’t proceed against the defendants because the doctrine of judicial immunity applies to his claims.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge in an individual capacity unless the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or performed a nonjudicial act.

Dettamanti v. Staffel · filed 2020-02-10

The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his individual capacity on the basis of judicial immunity because Dettamanti failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Judge Staffel acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or perform[ed] an act that [was] not judicial in nature.”

A magistrate judge has absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim for judicial acts performed within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Kiziah v. Catawba County North Carolina · filed 2020-02-12

Thus, because Judge Allen is immune from liability for his judicial acts, Plaintiffs cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted and their claims against Judge Allen must be dismissed.

A judge is absolutely immune from a § 1983 claim arising from handling a criminal case when the challenged conduct is judicial in nature and no exception applies.

Peterson v. Spear · filed 2020-02-14

Any allegation arising out of Judge Spear’s handling of plaintiffs criminal case, however, would be judicial in nature and not subject to any exception. Because Judge Spear is granted absolute immunity from civil lawsuits, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's claims against Judge Spear as legally frivolous.

Section 1983 claims against state judges in their individual capacities are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the claims concern judicial acts.

Gordon v. Van Schoyck · filed 2020-02-25

Because Gordon’s claim against the Defendant judges relates exclusively to their “judicial acts,” absolute judicial immunity bars this § 1983 claim against the state court judge Defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges for their judicial acts are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

Jiggetts v. Mosby · filed 2020-03-02

Jiggetts’ claim against Judge Peters, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, is barred by absolute immunity.

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

Bahshoota v. Hendrix · filed 2020-03-03

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. ... Plaintiff's allegations do not in any way suggest action by Judge Hendrix that was not judicial in nature or that was taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

A judge cannot be sued under § 1983 for sentencing within her jurisdiction, even if the sentence is alleged to be excessive.

Hernandez v. Schneider · filed 2020-03-09

Mr. Hernandez therefore cannot sue Judge Schneider under § 1983, even if she imposed an excessive sentence.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity when based on orders entered in their judicial capacity and within their jurisdiction.

RA-BEY v. LANE · filed 2020-03-11

Mr. Ra-Bey’s claims against Judge Lane are barred by judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a state judge for judicial acts unless the judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Martin v. Bedner · filed 2020-03-13

A state judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 liability except when the judge acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” ... Plaintiff alleges no facts whatsoever to suggest that the defendant judge acted outside of his judicial capacity.

A state judge is immune from § 1983 liability for judicial acts unless the judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Briscoe v. Bedner · filed 2020-03-13

A state judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 liability except when the judge acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

A state judge is immune from § 1983 liability for judicial acts unless the judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Swenson v. Bedner · filed 2020-03-13

A state judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 liability except when the judge acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

Section 1983 extends judicial immunity to requests for injunctive relief against judges acting in their judicial capacity.

Lockley v. Barredo · filed 2020-03-16

By statute, judicial immunity extends not only to claims for damages but also to requests for injunctive relief.

Section 1983 damages claims against a judge are barred by absolute judicial immunity for acts performed in a judicial capacity.

WILLIAMS v. LAND · filed 2020-03-16

With regard to Plaintiff’s constitutional claims, the Court construes Plaintiff’s claims as being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). ... Thus, Judge Rumer is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

A judge has absolute judicial immunity from a Section 1983 claim based on rulings in a state court proceeding.

Rodgers v. 323rd Dist Court Tarrant Cty, et · filed 2020-03-18

The court further found that Judge Smith enjoyed absolute judicial immunity for her rulings in the state court proceeding, that the 323rd District Court was not a legal entity capable of being sued, that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services enjoyed sovereign immunity, and that Rodgers had not alleged facts sufficient to overcome Frytz’s qualified immunity from suit. Seeing no error in the district court’s decision, we AFFIRM.

Judges are immune from § 1983 suits for judicial acts within their jurisdiction, even when accused of bad faith, corruption, or malice.

Jones v. Vannoy · filed 2020-03-19

A judge’s immunity from § 1983 actions bars a plaintiff’s recovery in all but two narrow sets of circumstances. ... Because defendants acted in a judicial capacity, and did not act in the absence of jurisdiction, they are entitled to immunity from suit.

Section 1983 claims against prison hearing officers are barred by absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in their capacities as hearing officers.

Stanley 610609 v. Houle · filed 2020-03-20

As such, they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from inmates’ § 1983 suits for actions taken in their capacities as hearing officers.

Section 1983 damages claims against state judges are barred by judicial immunity for acts performed in their judicial capacity.

Silverman v. Gagnon · filed 2020-03-30

Plaintiff’s action for damages against the three state judges newly named in this action must be dismissed because state judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 does not impose liability for a judicial officer’s acts in a judicial capacity merely because the federal government funds the court.

Leachman v. United States · filed 2020-03-30

In fact, § 1983 specifically exempts from liability “any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Dodson v. Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore · filed 2020-02-20

Judicial immunity may be overcome only by showing that the actions complained of were non-judicial in nature or were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. ... Because Dodson plainly takes issue with actions of a judicial nature that resulted in the dismissal of his complaint pursuant to the PLRA, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), he fails to overcome Judge Gilmore’s entitlement to immunity and his complaint will be dismissed.

Section 1983 limits declaratory and injunctive relief against a judicial officer to cases where the officer violated a declaratory decree or declaratory relief is unavailable.

Tarver v. Reynolds · filed 2020-03-31

To receive declaratory or injunctive relief against a judicial officer under Section 1983, the judicial officer must have violated a declaratory decree or declaratory relief must otherwise be unavailable.

A court-appointed receiver carrying out a judicial mandate may invoke absolute judicial immunity against a Section 1983 claim.

Gribbin v. New York State Unified Court System · filed 2020-03-31

The Court notes that the question of whether Defendant Irwin is entitled to judicial immunity applies only to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims, as there is no individual liability under the ADA. ... Irwin is therefore entitled to judicial immunity for these acts.

Michigan prison hearing officers have absolute judicial immunity from § 1983 claims for actions taken in their capacities as hearing officers.

Mims 838715 v. Huss · filed 2020-04-01

As such, they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from inmates’ § 1983 suits for actions taken in their capacities as hearing officers. ... Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint against Defendant Mohrman.

Judges have absolute immunity from individual-capacity Section 1983 damages claims based on judicial acts, including recusal and assignment decisions.

Price v. Irons · filed 2020-04-02

Plaintiffs’ claims against each of the judges are judicial in nature. ... Based on the substance of plaintiff’s claims, therefore, the judges enjoy absolute immunity here.

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

DIAZ v. RAGUCCI · filed 2020-04-02

State court judges are absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for actions taken in their judicial capacity unless they act “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a judge for a bail or detention decision made within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Barnes v. Hanford Superior Court Judge · filed 2020-04-03

The decision whether to release a defendant on bail or detain him is clearly an act within the judge’s jurisdiction and authority. The judge is entitled to absolute immunity for detention decisions, and Plaintiff may not state a claim based on the judge’s decision to detain Plaintiff rather than to release him on bail.

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

Givens v. Charles · filed 2020-04-03

However, “[judicial] immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances. First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991). Plaintiff does not explain how Defendant “being the sitting judge to pick the judge to preside over [his] Motion Hearing to Recuse” fits in either of those circumstances. Docket No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff's claims therefore fail.