Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05142/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05142-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

DAVID DANIELS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5142

 

JUDGE TOM KEITH DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, David Daniels, filed this civil rights action on July 31, 2006. He proceeds pro

se and in forma pauperis. The case is before the undersigned for a determination of whether

service of process should issue. 

BACKGROUND

Daniels alleges he appeared before Judge Tom Keith a number of times and never missed

a court date until October 3, 2005. Daniels indicates both his Mother and Grandmother died and

he went through filing the proper paperwork to get the court date moved. However, Daniels was

informed by his public defender that his request was denied. 

When Daniels went to court the next day, he states he took his Mother’s ashes with him

to prove that he had been truthful. Daniels alleges Judge Keith did not care and told Daniels to

shut up. Judge Keith then allowed Daniels to leave but did not drop a warrant that had been

issued for his arrest. 

At his next court date, Daniels states he was arrested for no reason. Daniels maintains

that Judge Keith also set his bond extremely high and has delayed the trial of the criminal case.

Case 5:06-cv-05142-JLH Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Daniels alleges Judge Keith has shown bias and prejudice towards Daniels and has acted

maliciously.

DISCUSSION

Daniels’ claims are subject to dismissal. Tom Keith, a Benton County Circuit Judge, is

immune from suit. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9

(1991)("Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of

damages."). See also Duty v. City of Springdale, 42 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir. 1994). "Judges

performing judicial functions enjoy absolute immunity from § 1983 liability." Robinson v.

Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir. 1994). “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.” Stump

v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978). 

Judicial immunity is overcome in two situations: (1) if the challenged act is non-judicial;

and (2) if the action, although judicial in nature, was taken in the complete absence of all

jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11. It is clear that neither situation applies here.

In the past, claims for declaratory and injunctive relief “have been permitted under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against judges acting in their official capacity.” Nollet v. Justices of Trial Court

of Com. of Mass., 83 F. Supp. 2d 204, 210 (D. Mass. 2000), aff’d without op., 248 F.3d 1127 (1st

Cir. 2000)(citing Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S. Ct. 1970, 80 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1984)). 

“However, in 1996 Congress passed the Federal Courts Improvement Act (“FCIA”), Pub. L. No.

104-317, Title III § 309(c), 110 Stat. 3847, 3853, which legislatively reversed Pulliam in several

important respects.” Nollet, 85 F. Supp. 2d at 210. As amended by the FCIA, §1983 now

precludes injunctive relief against a judicial officer “for an act or omission taken in such officer’s

Case 5:06-cv-05142-JLH Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

judicial capacity . . . unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was

unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Daniels does not allege that either of these prerequisites for injunctive relief are met. See

e.g., Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 761 (2d Cir. 1999)(holding injunctive relief against a

quasi-judicial official is barred if the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a declaratory decree

or the unavailability of declaratory relief); Fox v. Lee, 99 F. Supp. 2d 573, 575-576 (E.D. Pa.

2000)(claim for injunctive relief dismissed where plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege that either

of the prerequisites to injunctive relief were met); Ackermann v. Doyle, 43 F. Supp. 2d 265, 273

(E.D. N.Y. 1999)(dismissing action against judicial officers because plaintiff failed to allege that

a declaratory decree was violated or the declaratory relief was unavailable). Thus, to the extent

Daniels seeks injunctive relief his claims are subject to dismissal.

Furthermore, to be entitled to equitable relief, “plaintiff must show that he has an

inadequate remedy at law and a serious risk of irreparable harm.” Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy

Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1392 (9th Cir. 1987)(citations omitted). Equitable

relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy under state law exists. Pulliam, 466 U.S. at

542 & n. 22, 104 S. Ct. at 1981 & n. 22. See also Sterling v. Calvin , 874 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir.

1989). An adequate remedy at law exists when the acts of the judicial officer can be reviewed

on appeal or by extraordinary writ. Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1392 (citation omitted). See also Nelson

v. Com, 1997 WL 793060, 2 (E.D. Pa. 1997)(appellate review of conviction provides plaintiff

an adequate remedy under state law). See also J&M Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Hampton, 347 Ark.

126, 60 S.W.3d 481 (2001)(discussing when a writ of prohibition is appropriate). 

Case 5:06-cv-05142-JLH Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend dismissal of all claims on the grounds the claims are frivolous and

are asserted against an individual who is immune from suit under § 1983. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)(IFP action, or any portion thereof, may be dismissed on such grounds at

any time). 

Daniels has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to

file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Daniels is reminded

that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district

court.

DATED this 31st day of October 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05142-JLH Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>