Filed: Jan. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-12917 Non-Argument Calendar _ D. C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-0286-SLB WILLIAM B. CASHION NEVADA SPENDTHRIFT TRUST, STEVEN MARK HAYDEN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus ROBERT VANCE, JR. Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama _ (January 13, 2014) Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM
Summary: Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-12917 Non-Argument Calendar _ D. C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-0286-SLB WILLIAM B. CASHION NEVADA SPENDTHRIFT TRUST, STEVEN MARK HAYDEN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus ROBERT VANCE, JR. Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama _ (January 13, 2014) Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:..
More
Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12917
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-0286-SLB
WILLIAM B. CASHION NEVADA SPENDTHRIFT TRUST,
STEVEN MARK HAYDEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
ROBERT VANCE, JR.
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(January 13, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 2 of 7
William B. Cashion Nevada Spendthrift Trust and Steven Mark Hayden (the
Trust) appeal the district court’s grant of state court judge Robert Vance, Jr.’s
motion to dismiss with prejudice the Trust’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The Trust
contends Judge Vance deprived it of due process when he entered orders “without
authority or jurisdiction” in a state court case in which the Trust was the defendant.
The district court dismissed the Trust’s §1983 action because it determined Judge
Vance was entitled to judicial immunity. 1 After review,2 we agree that Judge
Vance is entitled to judicial immunity and affirm the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 8, 2012, the Trust was sued by William B. Cashion and
Western Steel, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. At the time
of filing, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County had a specialized Commercial
Litigation Docket (CLD), which was designed to handle business disputes. Judge
Vance was the sole judge presiding over the CLD.
Initially upon filing, the case was assigned to Judge Houston Brown.
However, shortly after this assignment, Cashion’s attorneys filed a request for
1
The district court also found Judge Vance was entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity to the extent the Trust’s complaint could be read to assert a claim against Judge Vance
in his official capacity. The Trust does not appeal this determination.
2
We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint de novo. Guarino v. Wyeth,
LLC, 719 F.3d 1245, 1248 (11th Cir. 2013).
2
Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 3 of 7
reassignment to Judge Vance, at which time Judge Brown submitted a request for
reassignment to the CLD. The Jefferson County Presiding Circuit Judge was the
only person with the authority to effect reassignment and the case was not
officially transferred to Judge Vance’s docket until March 14, 2012. Nonetheless,
from February 8, 2012, to March 14, 2012, Judge Vance entered four orders in the
action while he was not officially the presiding judge.
On February 11, 2013, the Trust filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in
federal district court, alleging Judge Vance violated their due process rights by
entering the four orders before he was officially assigned to the case. Judge Vance
filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, claiming judicial immunity for
his actions. On June 18, 2013, the district court granted Judge Vance’s motion to
dismiss with prejudice. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the
immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their
judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). “Judges are
entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they
are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction.” Bolin v. Story,
225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotations
3
Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 4 of 7
omitted). A judge is entitled to immunity “even when the judge’s acts are in error,
malicious, or were in excess of his or her jurisdiction.” Id.
The Supreme Court established a two-part test for determining whether a
judge enjoys absolute immunity in Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349 (1978). In
applying that test, the first question is whether the judge dealt with the plaintiff in
his judicial capacity. Dykes v. Hosemann,
776 F.2d 942, 945 (11th Cir. 1985) (en
banc). If he did not, he is not entitled to judicial immunity.
Id. If he did act in his
judicial capacity, then we ask whether the judge acted in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction.
Id. Thus, we must determine whether Judge Vance acted in his
judicial capacity in entering the four orders in this case while it was not officially
assigned to him, and, if so, whether he acted in the absence of all jurisdiction.
We have applied the following analysis in determining whether a judge’s
actions were made while acting in his judicial capacity—whether:
(1) the act complained of constituted a normal judicial function;
(2) the events occurred in the judge’s chambers or in open court;
(3) the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and
(4) the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in
his judicial capacity.
Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005).
4
Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 5 of 7
This analysis was first articulated in McAlester v. Brown, 469 F.2d 1280,
1282 (5th Cir. 1972). 3 In McAlester, this Court cited these four factors, that when
taken together, compelled the conclusion a judge was acting “in his judicial
jurisdiction.”
Id. The Fifth Circuit has since explained these “four factors are to
be broadly construed in favor of immunity,” and that “[i]n some situations,
immunity is to be afforded even though one or more of the McAlester factors is not
met.” Malina v. Gonzales,
994 F.2d 1121, 1124 (5th Cir. 1993).
In determining whether Judge Vance was entitled to judicial
immunity, the district court relied on the analysis as it was articulated in
Malina, 994 F.2d at 1124. The factors as quoted from Malina differed from
McAlester at part (3), in which “pending before the judge” was changed to
“pending before the court.” See
id. at 1124 (emphasis added). The Trust
argues this distinction is critical because its case was not pending before
Judge Vance at the time he entered the four orders, even though the case was
pending before the court. The Trust asserts this Court’s precedent squarely
holds that a judge acts in his judicial capacity only in cases pending before
him, and the fact the case was pending before the Circuit Court of Jefferson
3
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
5
Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 6 of 7
County was not sufficient to grant Judge Vance judicial immunity for his
actions.
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Judge Vance was acting in
his judicial capacity when entering the four orders. The distinction between
“court” and “judge” at part (3) of the McAlester analysis is immaterial. Judicial
immunity focuses on the nature of the action and the judicial character of the
conduct. Entering orders is a normal judicial function occurring in judicial
chambers, the orders were entered pursuant to a visit to Judge Vance in his judicial
capacity, and the case was pending before the Circuit Court of Jefferson County.
Although the “official” reassignment to Judge Vance from Judge Brown had not
yet occurred at the time Judge Vance entered the four orders, he was acting within
his judicial capacity in entering the orders.
The Trust also contends that because Judge Vance was not officially
assigned to the case when he entered the orders, he was acting in the absence of
jurisdiction. See Dykes, 776 F.2d at 945. The precedents of both the Supreme
Court and the Eleventh Circuit tie judicial immunity directly to the subject-matter
jurisdiction of the court, not the internal rules for assignment of its member judges.
For instance, the Supreme Court has held that a judge was entitled to absolute
immunity for revoking an attorney’s license because the court on which the judge
served, “[t]he Criminal Court of the District, as a court of general criminal
6
Case: 13-12917 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 Page: 7 of 7
jurisdiction, possessed the power to strike the name of the plaintiff from its rolls as
a practicing attorney.” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 354 (1871) (emphasis
added); see also
Stump, 435 U.S. at 357 (“We cannot agree that there was a ‘clear
absence of all jurisdiction’ in the DeKalb County Circuit Court to consider the
petition presented by Mrs. McFarlin.” (emphasis added)). Similarly, this Court
stated in Dykes that immunity exists “for judicial acts within the jurisdiction of the
court.” 776 F.2d at 945 (emphasis added).
In Alabama, “[t]he circuit court shall exercise general jurisdiction in all
cases except as may otherwise be provided by law.” Ala. Const. art. VI, § 142.
Subject-matter jurisdiction generally lies with a court, and not with a specific judge
sitting on that court. Ex parte Montgomery, 79 So. 3d 660, 668 n.4 (Ala. Civ. App.
2011). The Circuit Court of Jefferson County had jurisdiction over the state court
case. Therefore, Judge Vance, as a Circuit Court judge of the court in which the
underlying state court case was pending, did not act in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction when entering the four orders at issue before the case was officially
assigned to him.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Trust’s complaint
and grant of judicial immunity to Judge Vance.
AFFIRMED.
7
