42 U.S.C. § 1983

Judicial immunity bars retrospective declaratory relief under § 1983 for a judge’s judicial acts within jurisdiction, but does not bar prospective declaratory relief.

Rogers v. Gaston · filed 2020-04-07

To any extent Plaintiffs’ declaratory claims against Judge Gaston are retrospective in nature, they are barred by absolute judicial immunity for the reasons set forth below. Id. Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory relief against Judge Gaston, however, are not barred by judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a judge for acts taken in a judicial capacity unless the judge acted in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.

Murphy v. Stacy · filed 2020-04-20

Timothy P. Murphy, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Honorable Susan Stacy (Judge Stacy), a Florida state circuit court judge who presided over a portion of Murphy’s state foreclosure proceedings. ... And because Judge Stacy was entitled to judicial immunity, we affirm the district court’s grant of her motion to dismiss.

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

Sutterfield v. Dye · filed 2020-04-23

Plaintiff has not alleged that Judge Foster took actions that were non-judicial or without proper jurisdiction. Accordingly, the claims against him are subject to dismissal.

A judge has absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim for judicial actions taken within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Harmston v. House · filed 2020-04-24

Plaintiff’s allegations do not show that the defendant judge acted outside of his jurisdiction, and he is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 1983 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.

Thomas v. Ramos · filed 2020-05-05

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. ... Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Ramos arise of out of his rulings and actions while presiding over Plaintiff’s criminal case in this Court; such rulings and actions are within the scope of his judicial capacities and jurisdiction. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Ramos under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Judicial immunity in a § 1983 action does not depend on whether a judge’s particular act benefits society.

Ralph Ferguson, Jr. v. Dunn · filed 2020-05-07

That case did not establish a case-specific inquiry into whether judicial immunity would protect or benefit society; instead, Pierson affirmed general judicial immunity as itself a benefit to society.

Judges are immune from individual-capacity damages claims under § 1983 for actions within their judicial duties.

Panetta v. Cassel · filed 2020-05-07

Judges Patrick S. Owen, Joseph A. Owen, and Steven Brockett are therefore immune from suit as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for damages against them in their individual capacities under the doctrine of judicial immunity.

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

Blazejowski v. Maltz · filed 2020-05-12

Blazejowski has failed to carry her burden. See Roland v. Phillips, 19 F.3d 552, 555 (11th Cir. 1994) (quotations and citations omitted) (“Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability under section 1983 for acts performed in their judicial capacity, provided such acts are not done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”). Blazejowski has not alleged a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, her Motion is due to be denied.

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

Kelley v. State of California Supreme Court · filed 2020-05-15

In addition, “[j]udges are immune from civil liability in section 1983 actions for acts performed in their judicial capacities.” Sherman v. Babbitt, 772 F.2d 1476, 1477 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, the California Supreme Court was acting in its judicial capacity by issuing an opinion, however brief. Therefore, it is “entitled to judicial immunity.”

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

Myers v. Norman · filed 2020-05-15

Moreover, the claims against the two State judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 claims based on their judicial acts in resolving cases.

GRANT v. ELIAS · filed 2020-05-15

Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff is alleging civil rights claims against various judges and courts, those claims are barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges in their individual capacities are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged acts fall within their judicial duties.

Panetta v. Cassel · filed 2020-05-18

Judges Patrick S. Owen, Joseph A. Owen, and Steven Brockett are therefore immune from suit as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for damages against them in their individual capacities under the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a magistrate judge for conduct in the judge’s judicial capacity.

Hyde-El v. Nethken · filed 2020-05-20

Finally, even if Heck and Younger did not apply, judicial immunity bars Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Nethken, identified by Plaintiff as a magistrate judge in Iredell County, North Carolina.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for judicial acts unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Caraffa v. United States of America · filed 2020-05-27

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 and Bivens suits for damages for their judicial acts except when they are taken “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” ... The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against the undersigned are precluded by judicial immunity and are frivolous.

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

Wanda Bowling v. Roach · filed 2020-05-29

As for Bowling’s damages claims against Judge Roach, judicial immunity shields the judge from those claims.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims based on acts within their judicial capacity and jurisdiction.

Mancia v. State of New York · filed 2020-06-01

Plaintiff fails, however, to allege that Judge Cacace acted outside her judicial capacity, or in the absence of jurisdiction. Judge Cacace is therefore immune from suit, and Plaintiff’s claims against her are dismissed.

Judges are immune from § 1983 damages claims for rulings in cases over which they have jurisdiction.

Ackermann v. Mitchell · filed 2020-06-02

Ruling on a pending case over which the judges had jurisdiction is the paradigmatic example of action covered by judicial immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges in their individual capacities are barred by judicial immunity for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction.

AKOL v. CARNEY · filed 2020-06-05

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages against the Defendant in his individual capacity, such relief is barred by the “well-settled principle of law that judges are generally immune from a suit for money damages.” ... Accordingly, any putative §1983 claim against the Defendant in his individual capacity must also be dismissed.

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

Bailey v. Harper · filed 2020-06-11

Bailey’s claims against Judge Harper fail as he is immune from suit.

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.

Hirt v. Jackson County · filed 2020-06-11

Additionally, judicial immunity extends to preclude prospective injunctive relief against a state court judge for acts or omissions made in that judge’s official capacity. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“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”).

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims for acts taken in the exercise of judicial discretion.

Mares v. Chandler · filed 2020-06-17

Plaintiff requests damages for acts that were unquestionably made in the exercise of judicial discretion. Any claims against Judge Chandler are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

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

Palken v. Olds · filed 2020-06-24

Section 1983 now states 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.” ... Here, there is no allegation that Judge Judd has violated a declaratory decree or that declaratory relief is unavailable.

State judges sued for injunctive relief in their capacity as adjudicators are not immune from a Section 1983 suit.

File v. Kastner · filed 2020-06-29

Rather, he sues the justices in their capacity as adjudicators of disciplinary matters—he seeks an injunction preventing them from disciplining him for practicing law while he is not a member of the bar. ... Accordingly, the justices are not immune from suit in this matter.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on acts in their judicial capacity unless they act in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

RANSOME v. ANHALT · filed 2020-06-29

To the extent he intended to pursue civil rights claims against Judge Anhalt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, his claims fail. 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. ... As Judge Anhalt was acting in her judicial capacity while presiding over Plaintiff’s case, she is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from those claims.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages suits for judicial acts such as setting cash bond, unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Welch v. Maxson · filed 2020-07-07

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for their judicial acts, except when they are taken “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” ... Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Napper pertain only to Napper’s imposition of a cash bond in Plaintiff’s criminal proceeding. Despite Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary, Defendant Napper is absolutely immune for such acts.

A judge is absolutely immune from monetary liability under § 1983 for rulings and other acts undertaken in a judicial capacity.

AKOL v. CARNEY · filed 2020-07-07

The fact that Plaintiff may have been convicted of a summary offense or misdemeanor in absentia does not establish, based on the present averments, that the magisterial district court lacked jurisdiction to render its ruling; consequently, it remains true that the Defendant is absolutely immune from monetary liability insofar as Plaintiff’s claims are predicated upon his adverse rulings or other actions undertaken in a judicial capacity.

Section 1983 damages claims against a judge are barred by judicial immunity for acts within the scope of judicial duties.

Keten v. Lopez · filed 2020-07-09

Because the complaint concerns conduct by government actors, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lopez is based on actions within the scope of his judicial conduct. Therefore, these claims are dismissed under the doctrine of judicial immunity as frivolous.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a state court judge for rulings in a criminal case protected by judicial immunity.

Kelly v. Vela · filed 2020-07-10

Additionally, the state court judge is entitled to judicial immunity for his rulings in the criminal case, even if his exercise of authority was “flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”

Section 1983 bars monetary damages claims against state judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity unless they act in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Fudge v. Brown · filed 2020-07-16

The Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Brown 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.”

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

Fleming 462849 v. McMahon · filed 2020-07-17

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

Court personnel are protected by judicial immunity from § 1983 claims arising from acts performed in their judicial capacity.

El Bey v. Brown · filed 2020-07-17

Because these allegations concern actions taken in their capacity as judicial officers, Defendants Campbell and Haynesworth are protected by judicial immunity, and the actions against both should be summarily dismissed.

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

Johnston v. McGinnis · filed 2020-07-20

“A judge has absolute immunity for any judicial actions unless the judge acted in absence of all jurisdiction.” Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011). ... Based on Johnston’s allegations, the court concludes that Judge McGinnis is immune from liability in this action. Johnston only complains about actions Judge McGinnis took in his judicial capacity.

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

GITTENS v. JUDGE MELISSA T. PAVLACK · filed 2020-07-22

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. ... Accordingly, Judge Pavlack is entitled to absolute immunity in these circumstances.

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

Caraffa v. United States of America · filed 2020-07-24

Judges, however, are absolutely immune from § 1983 and Bivens suits for damages for their judicial acts except when they are taken “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” ... The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against the undersigned are precluded by judicial immunity and are frivolous.

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

BEY v. QUSIM · filed 2020-07-29

Judicial officers, however, are absolutely immune from such liability for judicialacts taken in their judicial capacity. ... Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity.”

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 damages claims against a judge for actions taken in a judicial capacity and within the court’s jurisdiction.

Ashford v. Douglas County · filed 2020-07-30

Accordingly, the Court dismisses any claims under sections 1981 and 1983 against Hendrix individually because of judicial immunity.

Judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 civil liability for judicial acts, including delays in ruling on motions, performed within their court’s jurisdiction.

Byrdwell v. Goodwin · filed 2020-08-03

Applying these factors, the Court finds that Judge Goodwin’s acts (granting the DVOs) and omissions (not ruling on Plaintiff’s pendente lite motions in the time that Plaintiff desired) were both “judicial” functions performed by Judge Goodwin in her official, judicial capacity. Because Plaintiff’s allegations concern the defendant as a judge of the Kentucky Court of Justice, absolute immunity attaches ipso facto to all of Plaintiff’s claims.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims based on a judge’s judicial acts within the judge’s jurisdiction, even when the plaintiff alleges bad faith or conspiracy.

COBB v. BENJAMIN · filed 2020-08-07

Judicial immunity applies despite Mr. Cobb's claims that she conspired with Judge Heimann, Detective Martoccia and Dr. Larry Schneider.

A judge waives judicial immunity as a defense to a § 1983 claim by failing to raise it in the district court or on appeal.

Hernandez v. Skinner · filed 2020-08-10

However, neither here nor in the district court did Hernandez argue that he is entitled to judicial immunity. He has therefore waived any such defense.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a judge for actions taken while presiding over and deciding a probate case because the judge has absolute immunity for those actions.

Lancaster v. Ligon · filed 2020-08-17

Last, Judge Compton has immunity in the circumstances alleged. Lancaster sues her for actions she took while presiding over, and ultimately deciding, the probate of John’s estate. Judge Compton enjoys absolute immunity from suit for these actions.

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

Elansari v. Philadelphia Municipal Court · filed 2020-08-19

We also agree with the District Court’s conclusion that the defendant judges are immune from the claims for damages. Elansari’s claims concern actions taken by the judges in Municipal Court proceedings, and Elansari did not plausibly allege that their actions were taken in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims based on actions taken in their judicial capacity.

Curry v. Borowski · filed 2020-08-28

Plaintiff states that he dealt with Judge Borowski through court proceedings and has not alleged claims that fall outside of a judge’s judicial capacity. Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Borowski therefore fail as he is entitled to judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a judge for actions taken within the judge’s judicial capacity.

Farrar v. Michell · filed 2020-09-03

Plaintiff does not allege that Justice Danzinger has taken any action outside the scope of his judicial capacity. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Danzinger under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Judges have absolute judicial immunity from § 1983 damages claims for judicial acts, including barring someone from a courtroom.

West-Helmle v. Denver Distrct Attorneys Office · filed 2020-09-09

Moreover, if acting to disbar an attorney is a judicial act under Forrester, it is difficult to comprehend why acting to bar an extern from a courtroom would not be. ... The Court finds that nothing in Forrester undermines Defendant Annis’ clear entitlement to absolute judicial immunity in this case.

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

(PC) Miles v. Hollister · filed 2020-09-14

Accordingly, judges Gindonelle and Kaufman are not proper defendants in a § 1983 case.

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

Robinson Jr. v. Frosh · filed 2020-09-15

Plaintiff may not proceed with claims for damages against the Defendant Judges because these claims are prohibited by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Section 1983 claims against a judge are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged conduct falls within the judge’s judicial duties.

Griffin-Robinson v. Salov · filed 2020-09-21

In the May 6 Order, the Court dismissed Griffin-Robinson’s claims against Justice Barry E. Warhit under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous. ... The Court therefore dismisses any claims she may be asserting against Justice Warhit and Murphy for the reasons in the May 6 Order.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a judge for failing to rule on motions when that failure is a judicial act protected by judicial immunity.

Byrdwell v. Goodwin · filed 2020-09-25

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim that Judge Goodwin failed to rule on his motions involves a judicial act for which Defendant would be entitled to judicial immunity.

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

Clifford v. Petrillo · filed 2020-09-29

To the extent that Clifford did specifically allege that the judges entered certain child support orders and related orders denying Clifford’s requests for discovery, for a change of venue, and for a jury trial, the District Court properly determined that the judges were immune from suit. Clifford’s claims are based on actions taken by the judges in Superior Court proceedings, and Clifford did not plausibly allege that their actions were taken in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

A judge has judicial immunity from a § 1983 claim for a contempt order issued as a judicial act within her jurisdiction, even if she abused that power or denied due process.

Westbrook v. Muncie City Court of Muncie, I · filed 2020-10-02

So, when Bennington ordered Westbrook to stop passing around fliers in her courtroom and then he returned the next day, she was performing a judicial act when she issued a contempt order. That she abused the power or did not comply with due process when doing so does not deprive her of immunity; she still acted within her jurisdiction.

Section 1983 does not allow a claim against a judge for a judicial act within her jurisdiction, even if she abused her power or denied due process.

Westbrook v. Hahn · filed 2020-10-02

So, when Bennington ordered Westbrook to stop passing around fliers in her courtroom and then he returned the next day, she was performing a judicial act when she issued a contempt order. That she abused the power or did not comply with due process when doing so does not deprive her of immunity; she still acted within her jurisdiction.

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.

Herbert v. Ginty · filed 2020-10-05

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.” ... These actions were within the scope of LaBuda’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s claims against LaBuda are therefore dismissed on immunity grounds.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 claims arising from acts within their judicial capacity and jurisdiction.

Vogel v. Ginty · filed 2020-10-06

These actions were within the scope of LaBuda’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s claims against LaBuda are therefore dismissed on immunity grounds.

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

McDaniel v. The People of the State of New York · filed 2020-10-07

Plaintiff previously asserted claims against Judges Thompson and Drysdale, who this Court found were entitled to judicial immunity. (Dkt. No. 16 at 2–3.) That conclusion still stands, and is extended for the same reasons to Judge Richard Tsai. Accordingly, all claims against Judge Thompson, Judge Drysdale, and Judge Tsai are dismissed.

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

Lewis v. Vasquez-Doles · filed 2020-10-07

Judges are absolutely immune from suit for damages for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. ... Such rulings and actions were within the scope of Justice Vasquez-Doles’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Vasquez-Doles under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against administrative law judges for judicial acts within their subject matter jurisdiction.

Salu v. Miranda · filed 2020-10-08

Judges generally receive absolute immunity from “suits for money damages for their judicial actions,” Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009) and from suits for injunctive relief under § 1983 with certain exceptions not relevant here, Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 761 (2d Cir. 1999). ... Therefore, the ALJ defendants are entitled to judicial immunity as their actions were judicial in nature, and they had jurisdiction over the subject matter before them pursuant to New York law.

Judges are immune from §1983 suits for actions taken as part of the judicial process.

Woods v. Borowski · filed 2020-10-09

That decision was a judicial action made as part of the judicial process, which makes Judge Borowski immune from suit.

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

Hahn v. State · filed 2020-10-13

To the extent Hahn’s suit names Justice Wooten in his individual capacity, his claim for damages is barred by judicial immunity because Hahn alleged that he was harmed by judicial acts (i.e., the disposition of a lawsuit), and his claim for injunctive relief is barred because he has not alleged a violation of a judicial decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable.

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

Jordan v. Bergerson · filed 2020-10-16

Here, Judge Bergerson had jurisdiction to preside over a bond hearing in Mr. Jordan’s criminal case, to set bond, and to rule on subsequent motions involving that bond. Accordingly, Mr. Jordan may not maintain a § 1983 claim against him.

Judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 claims arising from judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

BRENES v. THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK · filed 2020-10-26

It is abundantly clear that Judge DiBenedetto’s actions were all taken in his official capacity, and thus, he has absolute judicial immunity; all of Plaintiff’s claims against Judge DiBenedetto are dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 damages claims against a judge are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged acts were within the judge’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction.

Correa v. Ginty · filed 2020-10-27

These actions were within the scope of LaBuda’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s claims against LaBuda are therefore dismissed on immunity grounds.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on judges for setting bail or making other judicial decisions in a criminal prosecution.

Jumpp v. Keegan · filed 2020-10-30

Thus, Judge Keegan and Judge Geathers are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability in connection with setting bail for Jumpp or with respect to judicial decisions made in connection with his criminal prosecution.

Section 1983 does not preclude judicial immunity from damages suits against judges acting in their judicial capacity and within their jurisdiction.

Goodwin v. Kent County District Attorney · filed 2020-10-30

Contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not preclude judicial immunity from a suit for money damages.

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

Quinn v. Kibodeaux · filed 2020-11-13

The Court has reviewed Quinn’s filings and while it is clear he is dissatisfied with Judge Kibodeaux’s rulings, there is nothing to indicate she acted in complete absence of her jurisdiction. A judge who simply hands down rulings that one party disagrees with is not acting in absence of her authority.

Section 1983 does not permit damages claims against judges for actions taken in their judicial capacity when they had jurisdiction over the proceeding.

Sandoval v. City of Clovis · filed 2020-11-19

Accepting these allegations as true, there is no basis for relief under § 1983. Judges are immune from civil rights claims based on actions taken in their judicial capacity.

Section 1983 claims against court clerks are barred by judicial immunity when the clerks act in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Hopson v. Hunt · filed 2020-11-19

The Magistrate therefore properly determined that Defendant is entitled to judicial immunity.

A judge sued under § 1983 is immune for acts within judicial capacity unless the judge acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Cruz v. Jones · filed 2020-11-29

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege any facts to demonstrate that Judge Jones was clearly acting beyond the scope of his judicial capacity. As such, Judge Jones is immune from suit in this case.

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

Kelly v. The State of New York · filed 2020-11-30

Plaintiff’s damages claims against the defendant judges must be dismissed because those defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. The acts of these judges were clearly made in their judicial capacities and these judges did not act in clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Section 1983 damages claims against a judge are barred by judicial immunity when the judge acted in a judicial capacity and did not lack jurisdiction.

Frost v. Carter · filed 2020-12-07

Therefore, while judicial immunity is not absolute, the court finds that Judge Carter dealt with Plaintiff in his judicial capacity and that there is nothing alleged in the Complaint to show that Judge Carter lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff.

Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on acts taken in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

KORNAFEL v. DEL CHEVROLET · filed 2020-12-14

Fourth, Judge MacElree is entitled to absolute immunity from Kornafel’s § 1983 claims because 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.

Section 1983 claims for damages cannot proceed against judges for their judicial actions unless they act in clear absence of jurisdiction.

Golden v. INSCCR/St. Al. · filed 2020-12-15

However, certain individuals are immune from suit under § 1983. ... Here, Magistrate Paras and Judge Schiralli are immune from suit to the extent the Plaintiff asserts claims based on their judicial actions.

A § 1983 claim for monetary relief against an immune family court support magistrate must be dismissed.

Legister v. Radowitz · filed 2020-12-16

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s remaining claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York Family Court Support Magistrate Barbara O. Afriyie as frivolous and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged acts are judicial and within the court’s jurisdiction.

O'Neal v. Ecklerle · filed 2020-12-29

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

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

CRYMES v. WILD · filed 2020-12-29

Additionally, Judge Wild was acting within her jurisdiction as a Superior Court Judge, so neither exception to absolute judicial immunity applies.

Municipal judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 claims based on judicial acts within their jurisdiction.

SELBY v. MUNICIPALITY OF ATLANTIC COUNTY JUDICIAL COURT · filed 2020-12-31

These actions were within their jurisdictions as municipal court judges, so neither exception to absolute judicial immunity applies.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against a judge for issuing a bench warrant as a judicial act.

Banks v. Huehnerhoff · filed 2021-01-05

Plaintiff’s request for $22,500 in damages from defendant Verge is barred by judicial immunity because plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages related to defendant Verge’s judicial function of issuing a bench warrant.

Judicial immunity shields judges from Section 1983 claims based on their judicial rulings.

Justice (ID 74505) v. Broomes · filed 2021-01-05

Next, plaintiff’s claims concerning rulings by the defendant judges are subject to dismissal. These defendants are shielded by judicial immunity.

A judge has absolute immunity from a Section 1983 civil suit based on her rulings in a prior case.

Dunigan v. Springmann · filed 2021-01-06

Likewise, she has absolute immunity from civil suit based on her rulings in the prior case.

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.

Crutcher v. Colombo · filed 2021-01-06

This immunity extends to actions for injunctive relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (stating that "in any action brought against a judicial o fficer 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").

Judges are immune from Section 1983 damages claims for judicial acts performed without a clear absence of jurisdiction.

Surina v. Glanzer · filed 2021-01-08

A two-part test determines whether a judge is immune from liability when sued under Section 1983. ... Both prongs of judicial immunity are met here. Plaintiff seeks damages from this court which he asserts stem from a state court judgment. This is a function normally performed by judges in their judicial capacity. And in issuing the Final Divorce Order, the judge did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Section 1983 damages claims against a judge for judicial acts, and against a clerk for related court functions, are barred by absolute immunity.

Gabriel v. El Paso Combined Courts · filed 2021-01-08

A judge acting in his judicial capacity is immune from suit unless he acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or is sued for a non-judicial act. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Neither exception applies here. Judge Shakes’ actions in denying Gabriel’s motion to expunge or seal records were those “normally performed by a judge,” and Gabriel “dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). Accordingly, Judge Shakes is immune from suit. His clerk is likewise immune for exercising functions related to Gabriel’s attempt to obtain expunction or sealing of his criminal record.

Judicial officers are immune from damages under Section 1983 for judicial acts unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Roark v. Buckworth · filed 2021-01-12

Even if Plaintiff's alleged injuries do not flow from the state-court’s judgment, Plaintiff may not recover damages from any Defendant judicial officer by reason of judicial immunity.

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

Anderson v. Callahan · filed 2021-01-13

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for their judicial acts except when they are taken “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”

Section 1983 does not permit injunctive relief against judges in these circumstances.

Kacevic v. State of Georgia · filed 2021-01-15

Because the State of Georgia enjoys immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XI, and Judges Hunter and Seeliger enjoy absolute judicial immunity, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2018), from a suit for damages and are not otherwise subject to suit for injunctive relief, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a judge for judicial rulings protected by absolute immunity.

Dunigan v. McVey · filed 2021-01-19

Assuming he could overcome this barrier, Judge McVey has absolute immunity for her rulings in Mr. Dunigan’s case.

Judicial immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a judge for judicial acts performed within the judge’s jurisdiction.

David v. United States of America · filed 2021-01-25

As Judge Fleming was acting in his judicial capacity and did not act outside of his jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claim against him is barred by judicial immunity.

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

VAZQUEZ v. MCGINLEY · filed 2021-01-25

Furthermore, Vazquez’s claims against Judge Campbell in his individual capacity are based on acts or omissions he allegedly took in his judicial capacity while presiding over the criminal matter in which Vazquez is a defendant. These claims lack a legal basis because Judge Campbell is entitled to absolute immunity from such claims.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for acts committed within their judicial discretion.

Pilenza v. Driscal · filed 2021-01-28

Judges are absolutely immune from suits under § 1983 for acts committed within their judicial discretion.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 claim based on a judge’s judicial acts within the judge’s jurisdiction, even if the judge acted in bad faith or with malice.

Engel v. Judge Missey · filed 2021-01-29

Accordingly, Judge Missey has immunity from suit, even to the extent that Judge Missey acted in bad faith or with malice.

Section 1983 damages claims against judges and court staff are barred by judicial immunity for acts taken in a judicial capacity unless the judge acted in clear absence of jurisdiction.

Weissbrod v. Broward County Board of Supervisors · filed 2021-01-31

Third, to the extent Plaintiff seeks damages from the state court judges and the court staff, such claims are barred by judicial immunity.

Section 1983 permits injunctive relief against a judicial officer for an act taken in a judicial capacity only if a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

Rock v. Franklin County · filed 2021-02-03

Although “absolute judicial immunity extends only to claims for damages,” Larsen v. Senate of the Commonwealth, 152 F.3d 240, 249 (3d Cir. 1998), “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. Rock did not demonstrate that this exception applies.

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 claims based on a judge’s judicial acts; injunctive relief against a judicial officer is available only if a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief is unavailable.

Hyde-Rhodes v. Crowley · filed 2021-02-04

For example, even though Hyde-Rhodes perceives that Judge Crowley may have harmed her, the acts listed in the Complaint appear covered by judicial immunity and are subject to dismissal. Therefore, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted.

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

Maldonado v. Potter · filed 2021-02-11

Neither of these exceptions to judicial immunity is applicable here because it is evident that the alleged actions of Defendant were taken in the course of his judicial capacity and were not committed in the complete absence of all Jurisdiction.

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.

Wright v. Finley · filed 2021-02-22

Section 1983 now bars 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.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged act is judicial and within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Howard v. Hogan · filed 2021-02-23

A judge’s immunity from § 1983 actions bars a plaintiff’s recovery in all but two narrow sets of circumstances. ... Here, neither exception to judicial immunity applies. ... As such, judicial immunity bars Howard’s action against Judge Hogan, even if her decision was erroneous or in excess of her authority. Therefore, Howard’s claim against Judge Hogan must be dismissed.

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

Wicks v. Grove · filed 2021-02-24

Accordingly, Judge Grove is absolutely judicially immune from this § 1983 action.

Section 1983 claims against a judge are barred by absolute judicial immunity when the judge acts within her judicial capacity.

Daryl Cook v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2021-03-01

Finally, the District Court properly dismissed the claims against Judge Allen as she acted within her judicial capacity at all relevant times and is protected by absolute judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 claims against judges for acts performed in their judicial functions.

Orr v. McGinty · filed 2021-03-01

Furthermore, newly proposed claims, if any, in the proposed second amended complaint against the defendant judges in their individual capacity for their judicial orders, actions, and decisions issued in the underlying family court proceedings are for actions of the defendants performing their judicial functions and therefore are likewise barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

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

Parent v. Island County Superior Court · filed 2021-03-17

First, Judge Hancock is entitled to judicial immunity. ... Mr. Parent’s allegations relate to alleged procedural violations that occurred in court, and he does not allege any facts giving rise to the inference that Judge Hancock took action in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Therefore, as pled, Mr. Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Hancock are not cognizable.

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.

Weinstein v. Village of Briarcliff Manor · filed 2021-03-17

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. ... Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Code arise out of the judge’s rulings while presiding over Plaintiff’s state-court proceedings. Such rulings and actions were within the scope of Justice Code’s judicial capacity and jurisdiction. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Code under the doctrine of judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Section 1983 bars damages suits against judges for judicial acts, including rulings on a state habeas petition and related motions.

Arzaga v. Gill · filed 2021-03-18

Furthermore, judges like Defendants Gill and Katz are immune from suits for damages under Section 1983 based on judicial acts like ruling on Plaintiff’s state petition for writ of habeas corpus and related motions.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against judges for judicial acts unless they acted outside their judicial role or in the complete absence of subject matter jurisdiction.

Lacy v. Yost · filed 2021-03-25

Neither exception to judicial immunity applies here. Judge Yost and Judge Wynn are therefore immune from Plaintiff’s claims.

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

Tangwall v. Satterberg · filed 2021-03-29

Likewise, none of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint or appended exhibits suggest that these three Defendants acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” or performed acts that were not “judicial” in nature.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against a judge or court for judicial decisions merely because a litigant disagrees with them.

Arce v. Chautauqua Family Court · filed 2021-03-29

But Arce simply cannot recover damages from a judge or a court for decisions that he is unhappy about no matter how unhappy he is or how strong his feelings are.

Section 1983 claims against a judge are barred by judicial immunity when the challenged acts are judicial acts taken within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Hyde-Rhodes v. Crowley · filed 2021-04-02

The Court concludes that Judge Crowley’s actions were judicial acts taken within the course of the judicial proceedings over which Judge Crowley had subject matter jurisdiction via assignment under Idaho law.

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

King v. Turnbull · filed 2021-04-07

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.

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

Smith v. Allen · filed 2021-04-14

We agree with the district court that Smith’s claims against the judges are barred by judicial immunity, see Schottel v. Young, 687 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 2012) (judge is immune from suit, except for non-judicial actions or for actions taken absent all jurisdiction); and that his due process claims were predicated on an issue already decided against him in a prior state court action, see Haberer v. Woodbury Cty., 188 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 1999) (federal courts are obligated to give preclusive effect to issues decided by state courts); Hara v. Reichert, 843 N.W.2d 812, 816 (Neb. 2014) (elements of issue preclusion under Nebraska law).

A judge is immune from a § 1983 damages claim for judicial acts, including assigning cases.

Madison v. 36th District Court · filed 2021-04-15

Here, Judge Blount is immune from suit because the nature of her acts was judicial.

Judges are immune from Section 1983 suits for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction.

Hill v. Coffee · filed 2021-04-21

A judge is immune from suit, including suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to recover for alleged deprivation of civil rights, in all but two narrow sets of circumstances.

Judges are immune from § 1983 claims for judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of jurisdiction; injunctive claims also require a violated declaratory decree or unavailable declaratory relief.

SARAVIA v. DOE · filed 2021-04-28

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that suggest Judge John Doe acted in clear absence of jurisdiction in presiding over his state court case or that he violated a declaratory decree or that declaratory relief is unavailable in the state courts. Therefore, Judge John Doe is immune from Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, and the Court will dismiss the claims with prejudice.

A state magistrate judge has absolute judicial immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim.

Perry v. Fisher · filed 2021-04-29

Defendant is a state magistrate judge and has absolute judicial immunity from this civil action and should be dismissed from this case. ... After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.

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

Moniz v. Weipert · filed 2021-04-30

Moreover, the 1996 amendments to § 1983 extended absolute immunity for state judges to requests for injunctive or equitable relief. ... The Defendants are absolutely immune from suit for such conduct and the claims against them must be dismissed.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 suit against a judge for judicial actions.

Geter v. Kelly · filed 2021-04-30

In particular, the court concludes Judge Kelly is protected from suit on the basis of judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against judges for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction, even when improper motives are alleged.

Stevenson v. Holrack · filed 2021-05-03

A judge’s immunity from § 1983 actions bars a plaintiff’s recovery in all but two narrow sets of circumstances. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that judicial immunity would bar plaintiff’s claims against Judges Horack, Pearson and Dolan.

Judicial immunity bars Section 1983 claims against the judges in this case.

Olshefsky v. Bergan · filed 2021-05-04

Third and last, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that all claims against Judges Bergan and Knussman, regardless of the lack of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims in the instant case, were barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

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

Kruss v. Wilson · filed 2021-05-10

Kruss’ complaints about Judge Wilson concern the judge acting in her judicial capacity. Judge Wilson held Kruss in contempt of court, which involved the judge’s exercise of discretion. In addition, Judge Wilson’s order directing the GAL to pick up Kruss’ daughter in Will County does not demonstrate that Judge Wilson acted in absence of all jurisdiction. Judge Wilson not only had jurisdiction over Kruss’ divorce proceedings, but the IHhnois Circuit Courts Act provides that judges have jurisdiction throughout the state, including relief by processes that may be necessary due to the exercise of their powers. See 705 ILCS 35/26; People ex rel. Difanis v. Boston, 416 N.E.2d 333, 338, 48 Dec. 302, 307, 92 Il App.3d 962, 968 (4th Dist. 1981). On a final note, despite Kruss’ characterization of Judge Wilson’s behavior, judges “are entitled to absolute immunity from damages stemming from many of their official acts, no matter how erroneous or harmful.” Doermer v. Callen, 847 F.3d 522, 530 (7th Cir. 2017). ‘The Court grants defendant’s motion on this basis.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against state court judges for their conduct presiding over criminal proceedings.

Robinson v. Borzakian · filed 2021-05-11

The claims against state court judges who presided over different stages of Plaintiff’s criminal trial (Daniel Feldstern, Kathryne Stoltz, and Shari Silver), alleging that they conspired with the prosecutors and public defenders to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights (Compl. at 3, 6, 13), are dismissed with prejudice because they are barred by judicial immunity.

A magistrate judge has absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim for actions taken in her judicial role.

Kemp v. Belanger · filed 2021-05-12

Moreover, Judge McClusky is entitled to absolute immunity in her role as a Magistrate Judge.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by judicial immunity for judicial acts within their general jurisdiction, even if those acts allegedly violate a bankruptcy order or stay.

Stokes v. Christopher · filed 2021-05-12

However, a judge is absolutely immune from suit for judicial actions undertaken in the course of his or her official duties in connection with a case, unless the judge acts outside the judge’s judicial capacity or in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. ... Judges Christopher and Manley’s rulings in Plaintiffs’ court proceedings are unquestionably judicial acts done within their general jurisdiction as state district court judges. ... Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to judicial immunity.

Judicial immunity bars § 1983 claims against a judge based on the judge’s rulings.

Sharkey v. Villani · filed 2021-05-13

The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Villani are barred by judicial immunity as the claims are directed toward his rulings.

Section 1983 shields judges from suits for acts committed within their judicial discretion.

Vigue v. Clarke · filed 2021-05-18

Judges are absolutely immune from suits under § 1983 for acts committed within their judicial discretion.

Judicial immunity bars a § 1983 action against a judge for judicial rulings made within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Crawford v. Hughes · filed 2021-05-25

Because neither exception to judicial immunity applies, Judge Hughes is absolutely immune from this § 1983 action.

Section 1983 claims against a judge for acts taken in a state child custody proceeding are barred by absolute judicial immunity.

Schriber v. Sturgill · filed 2021-05-26

Because Plaintiffs sue Defendant Farris for actions she has taken in their state-court child-custody action, absolute judicial immunity bars their claims against her.

A judge is absolutely immune from a § 1983 claim based on acts performed in a judicial role.

Siruk v. State of Minnesota · filed 2021-05-27

Further, Judge Magill enjoys absolute judicial immunity since his challenged acts occurred while he was performing the duties of a judge.

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

Smalls v. Pearson · filed 2021-05-28

Rulings on pending cases over which they had jurisdiction are precisely the type of judicial actions covered by judicial immunity.

A judge is absolutely immune from a Section 1983 suit over judicial acts performed within the judge’s jurisdiction.

Nance v. Kitchens · filed 2021-06-04

As such, Judge Kitchens enjoys absolute judicial immunity from suit, and the plaintiff’s claims against him will be dismissed.

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

EHRLICH v. ALVAREZ · filed 2021-06-04

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold the state judicial Defendants liable for monetary damages in their individual capacities, these claims are barred by absolute immunity.

Judges and court administrators acting in a judicial capacity are generally immune from Section 1983 claims for damages and injunctive relief.

TALBERT v. EVERS · filed 2021-06-04

Court Administrator Evers and Judges Fox and Allen enjoy judicial and quasi-judicial immunity from Mr. Talbert’s claims.

Section 1983 does not permit a suit against a judge for acts performed in a judicial role.

Williams v. Fullerton · filed 2021-06-10

Moreover, Judge Fullerton in her role as the judicial officer who presided over the plaintiff’s criminal case enjoys absolute immunity “from § 1983 suits arising out of [her] performance of judicial functions.” Huffer v. Bogen, 503 F. App’x 455, 458 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–54 (1967)).

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity for judicial actions within their jurisdiction.

Nolan Vs. Gibbons · filed 2021-06-11

As the district court correctly observed, a judge is entitled to absolute immunity for all judicial actions over which the judge has jurisdiction.

A judge is immune from damages under § 1983 for acts performed in a judicial capacity and within the court’s jurisdiction.

Lightfeather v. County Psych. Dr. Hartman · filed 2021-06-14

Here, Judge Dalton’s action in presiding over Plaintiff’s competency hearing and in committing him to LRC for treatment were clearly acts normally performed by a judge in his or her judicial capacity. Judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice.

Judicial immunity can bar a Section 1983 claim against a judge.

Bhimnathwala v. New Jersey State Judiciary · filed 2021-06-15

The District Court determined that: the default entries are void because the State Defendants were not properly served; the State Defendants raised a number of valid bases for dismissal, including sovereign immunity, the statute of limitations, judicial immunity, and lack of personal involvement in any alleged constitutional violations; and Shah is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. ... In addition to the defenses correctly applied by the District Court in granting the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine2 to the extent that Bhimnathwala ties injury to, and seeks invalidation of, certain rulings in his divorce case.

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

SHEPHERD v. COYLE · filed 2021-06-15

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 clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Section 1983 claims against state court judges are barred by judicial immunity for actions taken in their judicial capacity unless they acted without jurisdiction.

Miller v. Villas Uptown · filed 2021-06-21

The Complaint fails to state a claim against, "Judge Jason Jaramillo," "a judge from Metro court" and "District Court" because they are immune from suit.

Section 1983 does not abrogate judicial immunity for judges acting within their jurisdiction.

Peoples v. Bahakel · filed 2021-06-22

The Lucarell decision does not help Mr. Peoples because the judges and assistant district attorneys he names in this action acted within their jurisdiction in conducting his state criminal trial and reviewing his conviction. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that “[i]n enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Congress did not abrogate the doctrine of judicial immunity.”

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

Artis v. Oss · filed 2021-06-22

Artis has named Judge Oss as a defendant, but she cannot be sued for money damages under § 1983 for acts taken in a judicial capacity.

Section 1983 claims against judges are barred by absolute immunity when the judges act within their judicial duties and have jurisdiction.

WEMUSA v. KIRSCH · filed 2021-06-23

As Defendants were acting within the scope of their judicial duties and clearly had jurisdiction, they are absolutely immune from suit and Plaintiff’s Complaint against them must be dismissed with prejudice for that reason.

Judges sued under § 1983 are immune for judicial acts unless they act outside their judicial role or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Sutton v. Eastern District of Missouri Federal Court · filed 2021-07-08

Plaintiff’s claims against “all Judges” are also subject to dismissal. A judicial officer, exercising the authority in which he or she is vested, is provided with immunity from suit. ... In this case, plaintiff has presented no allegations tending to show that any judges in the Eastern District of Missouri took a non-judicial action or acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

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

Scott v. Department of Justice · filed 2021-07-09

The facts, as alleged in the complaint, indicate that Oakland County Judge Marc Barron was acting in his judicial capacity when Agent Wieas approached him with a search affidavit, and Scott has not shown that Judge Barron lacked jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore, Judge Barron is immune from suit.

Section 1983 claims against an administrative law judge are barred by judicial immunity when they concern his judicial acts.

Cunningham v. Wright · filed 2021-07-13

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that claim is likewise dismissed because Wright is immune from suit for his judicial acts and because Plaintiff has not served Wright.

Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for their decisions in child custody cases.

Pritchett v. Giulitto · filed 2021-07-16

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not named a Defendant that can be sued for damages under § 1983. Judge Guillito is absolutely immune from damages for claims arising from her decisions in the child custody case.

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

Frazier v. Borchard · filed 2021-07-20

Moreover, the 1996 amendments to section 1983 extended absolute immunity to judges for requests for injunctive or equitable relief. ... Because Frazier’s challenge to his state criminal proceedings involves the performance of judicial duties, the judge defendants are entitled to absolute immunity.

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

BREWSTER v. LAND · filed 2021-07-21

Thus, Judge Land is absolutely immune from Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff’s Complaint may also be dismissed on this basis.

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

Butler v. Kelly · filed 2021-07-22

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

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.

Ezekwo v. OPMC · filed 2021-07-23

In addition, as amended in 1996, section 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.

Section 1983 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.

Li v. Dillon · filed 2021-07-23

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. ... Defendants undoubtedly were acting within the scope of their judicial capacity in rendering their decision. ... The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants as frivolous under the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Section 1983 does not allow a damages claim against a judge for acts taken in her judicial capacity when she had jurisdiction over the proceedings.

Florence v. Gibson · filed 2021-07-26

Neither of these exceptions to judicial immunity is applicable here. Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Judge Gibson clearly arise out of her role in presiding over his criminal case, and Plaintiff does not allege that she did not have jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings.

Section 1983 claims cannot proceed against judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

Bounds v. 16TH Judicial Circuit Court of Florida · filed 2021-07-27

Nor can Bounds sue Judge Mark Wilson for his involvement in preparing an arrest affidavit, because Judge Wilson is absolutely immune from suit for acts taken in his judicial capacity.

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

King v. Jay · filed 2021-07-27

Even when sued personally, a judge is immune from suit under section 1983 in all but two narrow sets of circumstances. ... Here, although it is alleged that Judge Jay violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, there are no facts alleged to suggest that Judge Jay acted outside the scope of his duties as a member of the Nebraska judiciary.

Judges are absolutely immune from Section 1983 suits for acts within their judicial discretion.

Mayo v. Punter · filed 2021-07-28

Judges are absolutely immune from suits under § 1983 for acts committed within their judicial discretion.