### No. 89-041


### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1989

CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MONTANA, Plaintiff & 

### Respondent-vsALICE PRICE, Defendant & 

### Appellant

ALICE PRICE, ~ross/Plaintiff& 

### Appellant-VS

### CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MT, a municipal corporation; RICHARD D. STEVENS; JOHN DOEAUSTIN; WILLIAM B. 

### REID;AUSTIN-REID DEMOLITION, a business association, Cross/Defendants & 

### Respondent

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth JudicialDistrict, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUNSELOF RECORD: For Appellant:
La Rue Smith,Great Falls,MT For Respondent: 

### J. David Slovak,City Attorney, Great Falls, MT Mark J. Higgins, Ugrin,Alexander, Zadick and Slovak; Great Falls,MT

Submitted on Briefs: June 1, 1989 D,ecided: July 6, 

### 1989 Filed:Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Alice Price appeals from an order of the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, dismissing with prejudice her cause of action against the City of Great Falls and Richard D. Stevens, hereinafter referred to as "defendants." We affirm. Ms. Price raises seven issues for our review, none of which directly address the propriety of the District Court's dismissal of this action. We therefore restate the issue on appeal as whether the DistrictCourt properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

### 12(b)

## , M.R.Civ.P.
on the basis thatdefendantswere immune from suit? Sincewe conclude that dismissal was proper, we 

### willnot discuss the remaining issues raised by Ms. Price. On October 30, 1987, Alice Price was cited for violation of Great Falls City Ordinance 8.48.080 for knowingly and purposely allowing waste paper, clothing, boxes, discarded furniture, appliances, and other rubbish toaccumulate on her property. The notice to appear and complaint was signed by Richard D. Stevens, a Zoning Technician for the City of Great Falls, who is a named defendant in this action. At a non-jury trial in City Court, Ms. Price was found guilty of creating a nuisance on her property at 620 6th Avenue South. The court ordered Ms. Price to completely abate the nuisance within seven days, and further ordered that if the nuisance was not completely abated by March 2, 1988, the City of Great Falls shalldo so and charge the cost of theprocedure toMs. Price. When she didnot cleanup her property by the ordered date, Richard Stevens, pursuant to the court's order, contracted out the clean-up project and billed Ms. Price for the cost, which was $495.5 'P-



### . a .I
*e a

Ms. Price appealed her conviction tothe District Court, and in subsequent pleadings, sought compensatory damages for personal propertywhich was allegedlywrongfully removed, and formental distressand suffering, as

### wellaspunitive damag
### es and attorney fees. These damages 

### were asserted against defendants Richard Stevens and the City of Great Falls, as 

### well asthe two individuals hired tocomplete the clean-up of Ms. Price's property. The City of Great Falls and Richard Stevens filed a motion to dismiss Ms. price's claims for relief pursuant to Rule 12, M.R.Civ.P., based on procedural errors, including the transformation of a criminalmatter to
a civil action under a rule providing for appeals of civil
cases to district court. Defendants also argued that they


### were immune from suit. The DistrictCourt granted defendants' motion, concluding that both the City of Great Falls and Richard Stevens were immune from suit for damages under the facts of this case. It is from this order that Ms. Price appeals. The actions complained of in this case relate toRichard Stevens' activitiesincarryingout, on behalf of the Cityof Great Falls, the sentence legally imposed by the City Court Judge. The District Court determined that in so doing, Mr. Stevens was immune from suitunder 

### S 2-9-112, MCA, as interpreted in Knutson v. State (1984), 211 Mont. 126, 683 P.2d 488. Section 2-9-112, MCA, provides: Immunity from suitforjudicial actsand omissions. (1) The state and other governmental units are immune from suit for acts or omissions of the judiciary.

In regard tothat section thisCourt 

### first stated:

# . . .The immunity statute appliestojudicial acts with no stated limitation. It 

### applies to protect the state and governmental agencies whenever the judicial power of the state is put to use in a judicial action. 

# .. .

In that case Ms. 

### Knutson argued that the immunity statutedidnot apply totheDepartment of Institutionswhich she contended had miscomputed the good time allowance. The Court concluded that the Department of Institutions was protected under the immunity section, stating:



# . . . Sentences are pronounced by courts, not by theDepartment of Institutions. Knutson's sentencingwas the resultof a judicial act. Further, 

### - the immunity statute protects any governmental agency involved 

### - in - 

### the judicial 

### - act 

## - of sentencing. (Emphasis supplied.)



### The issue inthepresent case iswhether ornot the City
aswell asMr. 

### Stevens areprotected by the immunity statute. Under the analysisof Knutson, we conclude thatthey are. In carrying out the express provisions of the sentence, Mr. 

### Stevens was directly involved in an act of the judiciary and is 

### therefore afforded immunity. Since he was acting as an agent of his employer, the immunity statutealsoprotects the City of Great Falls. We hold that 

### S 2-9-112, MCA, 

### provided immunity for both the defendants City of Great Falls and its 

### agent, Richard Stevens. We affirmthe order of the DistrictCourt dismissingthe plaintiff's casewith prejudice.

We Concur: