Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10216/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10216-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David C. Godbey
Appellee
Terry James
Appellant
Jeff Kaplan
Appellee

Document Text:

REVISED April 1, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10216

Summary Calendar

TERRY JAMES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

JUDGE DAVID C. GODBEY; MAGISTRATE JUDGE JEFF KAPLAN, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-4809

 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry James moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 

appeal of the district court’s denial of permission to sue Judge David Godbey 

and Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan. Mr. James wished to file a suit alleging 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10216 Document: 00512988863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2015
No. 14-10216

that Judge Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan violated his constitutional 

rights by sanctioning him. The district court determined that his suit was 

frivolous, denied permission to sue, and further denied Mr. James’s application 

to proceed IFP on appeal. 

By moving for IFP status, Mr. James is challenging the district court’s 

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We agree with the district court that Mr. 

James’s appeal is not in good faith. “It is well established that judges enjoy 

absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings,” Mays v. 

Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1996), and Mr. James makes no argument 

that somehow judicial immunity should not apply here, see, e.g., Stump v. 

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (noting exception to judicial immunity 

for acting in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction”). As such, because Judge 

Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan clearly enjoy absolute immunity, Mr. 

James’s suit is frivolous. 

Because Mr. James has not shown his appeal involves legal points 

arguable on their merits, we DENY permission for leave to proceed IFP, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See, e.g., Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & 

n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 14-10216 Document: 00512988863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2015