Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03232/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03232-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert E. Biehl
Appellant
Brenda Stoss
Appellee
Robert A. Thompson
Appellee

Document Text:

After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has *

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 15, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT E. BIEHL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRENDA STOSS, City of Salina

Municipal Court Judge, and ROBERT

A. THOMPSON, City of Salina

Municipal Court Judge,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-3232

(D.C. No. 07-CV-4084-SAC)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Robert Biehl filed a pro se suit seeking damages from two judges of the

City of Salina Municipal Court, contending that they mishandled criminal

proceedings in which he was charged and convicted of drunk driving. Because

judges are absolutely immune from claims for damages brought against them for

Appellate Case: 07-3232 Document: 010150498 Date Filed: 10/15/2007 Page: 1
- 2 -

actions taken in their official capacity, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of

the suit. 

* * * 

Following a series of appearances before the City of Salina Municipal

Court, stemming from drunk driving charges against him, Mr. Biehl sued Brenda

Stoss and Robert Thompson, two of the judges who presided over his hearings. In

his complaint, Mr. Biehl alleges that Judge Stoss and Judge Thompson failed to

appoint an attorney, to which he was entitled by law, to represent him; refused to

dismiss pending charges against him when police officers did not appear at

hearings; conducted a “phony” trial; and found him guilty. Furthermore, although

his complaint contains no allegations to this effect, Mr. Biehl submitted with his

complaint a copy of a waiver of counsel bearing his signature, with a handwritten

note stating that the signature was forged. 

Mr. Biehl sought both compensatory and punitive damages, although he did

not specify an amount due to his belief that “no amount could make up for [his]

losses.” The magistrate judge assigned the case granted Mr. Biehl’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. The district court then dismissed the suit under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), which requires the dismissal at any time of a suit for

money damages brought against an official immune from such relief. Mr. Biehl

appeals. 

* * * 

Appellate Case: 07-3232 Document: 010150498 Date Filed: 10/15/2007 Page: 2
- 3 -

“We review determinations of absolute immunity de novo.” Perez v.

Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). In light of

Mr. Biehl’s pro se status, we construe his complaint liberally. See Erickson v.

Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); see also Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070,

1076 (10th Cir. 2007). However, even construing Mr. Biehl’s complaint liberally,

we agree with the district court that it must be dismissed.

Congress has provided that in suits proceeding in forma pauperis, “the

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action

or appeal . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). It is “well established that absolute

immunity bars suits for money damages for acts made in the exercise of

prosecutorial or judicial discretion.” Andrews, 483 F.3d at 1076 (internal

quotation omitted). There are only two exceptions to judicial immunity: (1)

“actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity,” and, (2) actions of a judicial

nature “taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 502

U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). 

Here, it is obvious from Mr. Biehl’s allegations that his alleged injuries

arise from actions taken by Judge Stoss and Judge Thompson in their judicial

capacities. He alleges that, while presiding over his hearings, the judges did or

failed to do various things in relation to the charges pending against him, such as

failing to appoint counsel. Similarly, Mr. Biehl does not challenge the

Appellate Case: 07-3232 Document: 010150498 Date Filed: 10/15/2007 Page: 3
- 4 -

jurisdiction of the Salina Municipal Court. Finally, while a claim that a judge had

forged the signature of a defendant on a waiver of counsel form might not be

barred by judicial immunity, Mr. Biehl has failed to allege that either defendant

forged his signature. His complaint contains no allegations regarding forgery at

all, and his handwritten note on the attached documents fails to specify which, if

either, of the defendants he believes forged his signature. Thus, neither exception

to judicial immunity applies, and the district court properly dismissed the suit. 

 * * * 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-3232 Document: 010150498 Date Filed: 10/15/2007 Page: 4