Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

CRYSTAL LEANN “CLARIDA”

FITZWATER, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-3056

JOHNNY L. NICHOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS 

O R D E R

On this 30 day of March 2006, the above referenced matter th

comes on for consideration of Separate Defendant John Putman’s

Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 54). The Court,

being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:

1. The plaintiffs initiated this action on September 22,

2005; and, then filed an amended complaint herein on November 9,

2005, naming as defendants Johnny L. Nichols, John Putman, Randel

Earl Clarida, Danny Hickman, Richard Bogue, Linda Adams, and Zeola

Yeager. 

2. Separate Defendant John Putman now moves to dismiss the

plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. 

3. Based upon a review of the plaintiffs' lengthy

complaint, it appears that the allegations in the complaint

against John Putman, Circuit Court Judge for the Fourteenth

Judicial District of Arkansas, stem from a court proceeding in the

Boone County, Arkansas Circuit Court. In his motion, Putman

argues that he is entitled to absolute immunity from suit and that

plaintiffs' complaint against him should be dismissed. However,

in response, the plaintiffs argue that judicial immunity is lost

for "acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 107 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

4. "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, 554 (1967). And, the United States

Supreme Court recognized and adopted the doctrine of judicial

immunity in 1871. See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871).

Judicial immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting

maliciously; and, it

is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or

corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public whose

interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to

exercise their functions with independence and without

fear of consequences.

Pierson at 554 (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871). 

Although the plaintiffs argue that judicial immunity is lost

if a judge acts with a "complete lack of jurisdiction", such an

exception, if it should be recognized by this Court, simply does

not apply to the situation at hand. 

5. Therefore, the Court finds that Separate Defendant John

Putman's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 54)

should be, and it hereby is, granted and, as to John Putman,

plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 107 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>