Pursuant to5th Cir. R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin5th Cir. R . 47 .5.4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20126

PA U L AL EXAN D ER BU RN S , P l a i n tiff-A p p ell a n t, v. H O N O R A B L E K . M IC H A E L M AY E S , e t a l., D e fe n d a n ts -A p p e lle e s .

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f T e x a s ; U

. S. D

. C

. N o. 4: 07- c v- 3814

B ef ore G A R W O O D , W IE N E R , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l an tP au lA l exan der B u rn s (“ B u rns”) app eal s t h e di st ri ct
c our t ’ s 12(b) ( 6) di sm i ss al of hi s ac t i on as se r t i ng c l ai m s und er42 U

. S. C

. § 1983 and var i ous s t at e t or t s agai nstK

. M i c haelM ayes (“Judge M ayes ” ) , a Texas j udge f ort he 410th D i st r i c t , and M ont gom er y C ou n t y (“ t he C ount y” ) , as bar r ed by j udi c i ali m m uni t y and by Mo n ell’ s li m i t ati on on m uni c i pall i ab ility, r es pec t ively. B u r n s s o u g h t d a m a g e s a s w e ll a s d e c la r a to r ya n dinju n c tiv e re lie f. O n app eal , B u rns assi gn s t o t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r u li n gs i xteen poi n t s of United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 8, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2010So m e c l ai m s de f y e as y c l as s i f

i c at i o n, i nc l udi ng " [i] s SAP' s [t he 1 dru g- t reat m en tprot ocolt h at s peci f i ed the cond i t i on s of

B u rns’ s c on t i n u ed c o m m uni t y s upe rvi s i o n] s c i e nc e s o und? " I n a ddit i o n, Bur ns c hall e nge s t he di st ri ctcourt ' s r ef

u salt o entert ai n hi s s t ate t ortcl ai m s. T e x . P e n a l C o d e § 4 8 1 .11 5 (b )(p o ss e ss ion of aco n tro ll e dsu b sta n ce ). 2 D orsey v. Portf

ol i o Equ i t i es, I

n c. , 540 F. 3d 333, 338 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) 3 (in te rn a l m a rk s a n dcita tion s o m itted ).

- 2- er r or , w hi c h m ay ber oughl y c l as sif i ed asfal l i ng w i t hi n t h ree ca tegor i es : ( 1) cha l l en ges t o t h e d istr i ctcourt ’ s j u di ci ali m m u n i t y determ i n ati on , i t s Mo n ell det er m i nat i on, and i t s r ef usalt o gr antdi sc ov ery bef or e de c i di ng s am e; ( 2)
c l a i m e dv i o l a t i o ns o f d ue p r o c e s s a ndo t he rc o ns t i t ut i o na lr i g ht s –i nc l udi ng a c la im u n d e rth e A m e r ic a n s W it h D is a b il it ie s A c t(“A D A” ) –a r is in gfr o m B u r n s ’s
c o ndit i o ns o f

de t e nt i o n, t he fail ur e o f t he do c um e nt s t hat s e to utt he c o ndit i o ns of pro b a ti on to give n oti ce th a t th ese co n d i ti on s m a y p rosc rib e a n y co n tact w i th h i s fa m i l y , t h e fa i l u r e t o g iv e n o t i c e o f t h e p r e c i s e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f c r e at i ni ne th a t c o n s tit u t e s a “ d ilu te d ” u r in e s a m p le , a n dth e fa ilu r e to h o ldah e a r in gin
w hi c h t he ur i nalys e s a nd Bur ns ’ s c o ndit i o ns o f c o nf i ne m e ntco ul d be c hall e nge d; and ( 3) c hal l enges t o t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s fai l ure t o gr antdec l ar at or y o ri nj unct ive re li e f. 1 A s w e c onc l ude t hat al l of Judge M ayes ’ s ac t i ons w er e t aken i n hi s r ol e a s t he j udg e pr e s i di ng o ve rBur ns ’ s g ui l t y pl e a ands u bse que ntpr o ba t i o n f o rt he st ate j ai loffe n se of

coc ai n e possess i on , an d that t h ese act s w ere not t ak en 2 p u r s u a n tt o an ypo l i c yo rp a t t e r n o f c o n d u c ta t t r ib u t a b l e t o t h e C o u n t y , we A F F IR M

. I . Fact s & P r oce edi ngs W e a c c e pta s t r ue t ho s e w e l l

- pl e ad e d fac t s c o nt ai ne d i n t he c o m pl ai nt , a nd dr aw ev ery reasonabl e i nfe r e nc e i n fav o ro f t he pl ai nt i f

f

. W he n, a s he r e , t he 3 Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2010D a v is v . B ay le s s , 7 0 F

. 3 d36 7 , 37 2 n . 3 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 5 ) (“ F ed era lcou rts 4 ar e pe r m i t t ed t o r ef

ert o m at t er s of

publ i cr ec or d w hen dec i di ng a 12(b) ( 6) m oti on to dism i ss. ”) c i t i ng C i n elv. Con n i ck , 15 F

. 3d133 8, 134 3 n
. 6 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ). Ac c o r d Baue rv . Texas , 3 41 F. 3d3 52 , 3 62 n. 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) (t ak i ng ju d ic ia l n o tic e o f p u b licco u r t r e c o r d s n o t in d is p u te ); Ki nnet tD ai r i e s , I nc. v. F arrow , 580 F

. 2d126 0, 127 7 n
. 33 (5t h C i r. 197 8) (perm i t t i n g j u di ci alnoti ce of aco u r t’s o w n re c o r d s o rth o s e o f th e in fe r io rco u r ts ).

T e x . P e n . C o d e § 4 8 1 .11 5 (b ) (p o ss e ss ion of aco n tro ll e dsu b sta n ce ). 5 T h eS ta teof T

exa s v . Pa u l A lexa n d e rB u r n s , C ause N o. 05- 06- 05814- 6 C R

. Tex. C ode C r i m . Pro c . 42. 12.

7

- 3- pl ai n t i f f ’ s c h ronol ogy of

even t s c on t ai n s severalsi gn i f i can tl acu n ae, w e “rely on

‘ docu m en t s i n corporat ed i n t o t h e com pl ai n tb y ref erence, a n d m att ers of w h i ch
a c o u r t m a yta k e ju d ic ia l n o tic e ,’” s u c h a s th e re c o r do f th e p r o c e e d in g s in 4 B urns ’ s c as e b efore t he 410th Judi c i alD i st r i c tC our tof M ont gom er y Coun t y, T e x a s . I n M ar c h 2005, a l aw enf or c em entof

f i c erst opped B urns f

ors pee di ng, an i nc i de ntt hatul t i m at e l y l e adt o t he di s c o ve r y o f c o c ai ne i n Bur ns ’ s p o s s e s s i o n. H e w as c har ge d wi t h t he s t at e j ailo f fe ns e o f

po s s e s s i o n o f

ac o nt r o l l ed subs tan ce, and h i s c as e w as as si gned t o J udge M ayes of t he 410th Judi c i al 5 D i s t r i c tCour tof

M o nt go m e r y Count y. I n F e br uary o f t he fo l l o w i ng ye ar , Bur ns 6 pl ead ed gu i l t y, rec eiveddeferred adj u di cat i on , an d a g reed t o t h ree years of
c o m m u n it ys u p e r v i s io n (a te r m w e s h a llu s e in t e r c h a n g e a b lyw it h ‘p r o b a t io n ’) i n l i e u o f

i nc ar c e r at i o n. I n c o nne c t i o n t he r e w i t h, Bur ns s i gne d a nd 7 t h u m bp ri n t ed a d ocum en tt i t l ed “C on di t i on s of C om m u n i t y S u pervi si on , ” w h i ch
s t a t e dt h a tap a r t i c i p a n tma yb e a r r e s t e da n dd e t a i n e dif h e v i o l a t e s t h e t e r ms o f h i s c om m u n i t y sup ervi si on . O n e such p rovi si on prohibi t ed h i m f rom con su m i n g a l coh ol or n a rcotics, an dan oth er re q u i red p e r iod i c su b m i ssion to Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2010B u rns does not chal l en ge t h e factor cond i t i on s of hi s det en t i on on 8 t hi s o c c as i o n.

I n hi s c o m pl ai nt , Bur ns c o nc e de s thatt he SAP Pro gr am i s t he 9 i nve nt i o n o f

J udg e M ay e s , c i t i ng Jud geM ay e s ’ s o w n e xp l ana t i o n o f t he pr o gr am f

r o m hi s w e bs i t e f

o rt he fac tt hat“ I [Jud geM ay e s ] c r e at e d aD r ug a n dAl c o h o lP r o g r a m i n t h e 4 1 0 t h Di s t r i c tCo u r t
. I ti s c a l l e dt h e S AP P r o g r a m . O u rS A P P r o g r a m w a s b a s e dinp a r t o n th e fo r m o f th e ‘ o r ig in a l’ D r ug Cour ti n o urCounty, b utm o r e s o o n whatIo bs e rve d abo utdr ug and a l coh ol defen d a n ts i n cou rt f or 6 ye a rs a s a p resid i n g jud ge . ”

- 4- m ont hl y ur i nal ys es t o ver i f y c onf or m i t y t her ew i t h. A m ong t he c ondi t i ons w as in clu d e d the w arn i n g t h at a di l u t ed u ri n e sam pl e “w i l lbe presum ed” t o be a vi o l at i o n, w i t h t he c o ns e que nc e t hatc o m m uni t y s upe rvi s i o n “ m ay” b e r e vo ke d. I n t he e ns ui ng ye ar , t w o ur i nalys e s r e ve al e d t hat Burns ha d v i o l at e d the t erm s of

hi s probati on . A n e a rlyte st –al m osti m m edi ately af t er hi s peri od of p r o b a tio n b e g a n –in d ic a te dt h a t B u r n s h a dt a k e n a n u n d is c lo s e dn a r c o tic p a in
m edi cat i on (barred u n der t h e t erm s of hi s probati on )

. A n ot h er t est – j u stover a year l ater– reveal ed that B u rns ha d i n gest ed alc oh ol

. B u rns w as not
sa nct i oned f

oll ow i ng t he f

i r stvi ol at i on, butaf t ert he s ec ond vi ol at i on he w as i m m e di at e l y ar r e s t e d a nd j ail e d f o ro ne w e e k. W he n B u rns w as r e l e as e d, 8 Jud geM ay e s o r de r e d hi m t o c o m pl e t e a3 0- da y drug anda l c o ho lt r e at m e nt program , an d a 6 0 -d a y af t ercare program , w h i ch B u rns di d su cces sf u l l y. A s a c o ndit i o n pr e c e de ntt o t he c o nt i nuat i o n o f Bur ns ’ s de fe r red adj udi c at i o n a nd p rob a ti on , h ow ev er, J u d ge M a ye s m od i fi edth e ter m of B u rn s’ s com m u n i ty
s u p e rv is io n b yaco u r t o r d e rth a t e x te n d e dit fo ro n e y e a ra n dr e q u ir e d–in ad di t i on t o t h e pri or c on di t i on s – t h at B u rns pa rt i ci pa t e i n a l en gthy su bstancea b u se re co v e ryprogram , “ S t ability A ch iev e m e n t P ro g re ss ” (th e “S A P P ro g ra m ”). Judge M a yes had de vel ope d t he SA P P r ogr am f ort he 410th D i st r i c tC our tas 9 Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/08/2010T ex. H eal t h & Sa fet y C ode § 469

. 001 ( a) ( 1) ( govern i n g t h e cr eati on 10 and adm i ni st r at i on o f dr ug c our t s)

. The SA P P r ogr am i s t he bas i s f orJudge M a y e s ’ s d r u gco u r t p r o g r a m .

A l t hough noti ncl uded i n Judge M ayes ’ s or der , t he i nst r uct i on t hat 11 Burns no tha vev i s it o r s o rpho ne c all s w as c o m m uni c at e d i n a n i ns t ant m e s s a g e co n v e r s a tio n , a n daco p yw a s a p p e n d e dto B u r n s ’ s co m p la in t. B u r n s a p p a r e n tlycla im s th a t p e r io d ic a llylo w le v e ls o f c r e a tin in e in 12 h i s uri n e const i t u t e a di sabi l i t y t h at s h ou l d h ave been accom m oda t ed u n der

- 5- p a r t o f its d r u g -c o u r t p r o to c o l. B u r n s s ig n e d a n d th u m b p r in te d a c o p yo f th is 10
o r d e r . O ne o f the c ondi t i ons of

the SA P Progr am – i dent i c altoB urns ’ s or i gi nal
c ondi t i ons of

pr obat i on – s t i pul at ed thata dil ut ed ur i ne s am p l e w ou l d be p resu m edto be a v i olati on . T h e S A P P rog ra m also sp ecif i ed , h ow ev er, th a t a d ilu te du r in e s a m p le w o u ldre s u lt in im m e d i a t e ja il s a n c tio n s . A lth o u g h th is provi so f

or i m m edi ate j ai lsancti on s di d n ota pp ear i n B u rns’ s or i gi n alt erm s of proba t i on , he h adbeen i m m edi ately jailed w h en a sec on d u ri n e sam pl e t est ed p o s itiv e fo ra lc o h o l. In J u ly2 0 0 7 , B u r n s s u b m itt e da u r in e s a m p le t h a t c a m e b a c ka s “d ilu te d .” Th i s w as the f

i r stsuch re sul ti n m or e than a yearof uri nal ys es . Conseque nt l y, Ju dg e M ayes h adB u rns arrest ed a n d jai l ed, an d ordered h i m t o ref rai n f rom c o n ta c t w ith fa m ilyo rf r ie n d s d u r in gt h a t in c a r c e r a tio n , a lth o u g h v is its w ith h is att orney w ere perm i t t ed. B u rns’ s c om pl ai n tal leg e s that he w as nev er given 11
n ot i ce th at vi si t s w i t h or ph on e cal l s f rom fr i en ds an d fam i l y m i gh tbe proh ibi t ed
as pa r to f

hi s de t e nt i o n. H e a l s o a l l e ge s t hathe w as n ever g ive n no t i c e o f t he pr e c i s e s t and ar d –m e as ur e d i n am i l l i gram s pe rde c i l i t e ro f c r e at i ni ne i n t he
u ri n e – t h at w ou l d constit u t e a “ di l u t ed” s am pl e, an d that he suff ers f rom
n atural l y occurri n g l ow cr eati n i n e i n hi s uri n e. 12 Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/08/2010th e A m e r ic a n s W ith D is a b ilitie s A c t o f 1 9 9 0 , § 3 (2 )(C ), 4 2 U .S .C . §

12 10 2( 2) (A)

- ( C) ( de f

i ni ng a di s ab i l i t y as “ a phy s i c alo rm e nt ali m pa i r m e nt t h at s u bstanti al l y l i m it s one or m ore of t h e m aj or li fe act ivi t i es of such i n divi du al ; a rec ord of such a n i m pa i rm en t ; or bei n g regardedas hav i n g such an i m pa i r m e nt
. ” )

. Al t ho ughl o w c r e at i ni ne i s as ym pt o m o f s e ve r als e r i o us i l l n esses an d cond i t i on s, B u rns does not al l ege t h at he suf fers f rom an y of th e m . Judge M ayes m odif i ed Bu r ns’ s pro bat i on t o r equi r e thathe w earan 13 ank l e - br ac e l e tm o ni t o r i ng s ys t e m , pr e s um ab l y be c aus e , w hi l e i n j ail , Bur ns h a dap p a ren tly told h i s w i fe t h a t if h e w ere releas edh e w ou l d“run

. ”

- 6- Lat e rt hatm o nt h, Bur ns ’ s a t t o r ne y f i l e d aw r i to f

ha be as c o r pus w i t h t he
cou rt, an dJu d ge M a ye s i m m ed i a tel y sch ed u l eda h ea ri n g for e a rl y A u gu st. Sh or t l y t her eaf

t er , Judge M ayes l ear ned f r om j ai lst af

f thatB urns ’ s fam i l y had vi s i t e d hi m a tthe j ail

. J udg e M ay e s s e ntapr o ba t i o n o f f i c e rt o i nf

o r m Bur ns pe r s o nall y t hathe c o ul d no tha vev i s i t o r s o rm ak e o r receivepho ne c all s , b ut Bu r n s n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n t i n u e dt o t e l e p h o n e h i s fa mi l y i n t h e e n s u i n g d a y s . On t he da y be f

o r e t he sc he dul e d hab e as hea r i ng, B ur ns ’ s a t t o r ne y r e que s t e d ab o nd h eari n g, an d a da t e fori tw as setf or early S eptem ber. La t e i n A u gu st , how ever, Jud geM ay e s a m e nde d Bur ns ’ s c o ndit i o ns o f c o m m u n itys u p e rv i s i o na g a i n, a nd 13
r e le a s e dB u r n s fr o m ja il th e fo llo w in gd a y . ThatN o ve m be r , Bur ns f i l e d thi s s ui ta ga i n stJ udg e M ay e s a nd the C ou n ty. In M a y o f th e fol l ow i n g y ea r, the stat e file d a m oti on to adj u d i ca te B u r n s ’ s g u ilt a n dre v o k e h is c o m m u n itys u p e rv is io n . T h e fo llo w in gm o n th , a vi si t i n g j u dg e, J u dg e J am es K eesha n , a ccept ed B u rns’ s pl ea ba rgai n , i n w h i ch h e pl ead ed “t rue” t o vari ou s vi ol ati on s of hi s c om m u n i t y sup ervi si on , bu tdi d n ot pl ead “t r ue” t o s ubm it t i ng di l ut ed ur i ne s am pl es . Bu r ns w as se nt enc ed t o 3 65- d a ys i n j a i l , w ith cr ed i t f or ti m e se rv edw h i l e d eta i n eddu ri n g h i s com m u n i ty
su p erv i sion

. H e h a s si n ce co m p l eted h i s sen ten ce a n di s n o lon ge r su bje ct t o Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/08/2010A br aham v. Si ngh , 4 8 0 F .3d 3 5 1 , 3 5 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). 14 Ki ng v . D oga n , 3 1 F

. 3 d3 4 4 , 3 4 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) (p e rc u r i a m) 15 ( “ ‘ D i scovery m att ers are entrust ed to t h e ‘ soun d d i scr et i on ’of t h e di st ri ct c our t
. . . . ’” ) ( quot i ng R i cha rdson v. Henry , 9 0 2 F .2 d4 1 4 , 4 1 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 )).

- 7- J u d g e M a y e s ’ s s u p e rv is io n o rth e S A P P r o g r a m . Af t e rf i l i ng hi s § 1 98 3 s ui ti n f e de r alc o ur t , Bur ns a m e nde d hi s c o m pl ai nt i n Dec e m be r2 007. I n s e pa r at e m o t i o ns und e rFe d. R. Civ. P. 1 2(b) ( 6) a nd 1 2 (b)( 1 ), Ju d ge M a ye s an dthe C ou n ty ti m ely m ov edto dism i ss th e ca se. In M arch 2 008 , w h i l e th ese m ot i on s w ere pend i n g, B u rns m ovedt o com pel d e p o s itio n s o f J u d g e M a y e s a n dC o u n ty o ffic ia ls

. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie dth is
m ot i on i n a w r i t t eno p i nio n. Bu r ns nev er t hel es s so ught pro duct i on, w hi c h Judge M a y e s a n dth e C o u n tym o v e dto s ta y . In J u ly 2 0 0 8 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta y e da ll d e a d lin e s inth e ca s e . T h e n e x t w e e k , B u r n s file dam o tio n to a m e n dh is
com p l a i n t yet ag a i n . In S ep tem b er 2 0 0 8 , the distri ct cou rt, i n tw o se p a ra te
m em or anda and or der s, gr ant ed the def endant s’m ot i ons t o di sm i ss, b utgave B u rns t h e opp ort u n i t y t o re- pl eadhi s i nj u n ct ive cl ai m s. B u rn s i n st eadreas se r t ed h i s origina lcl a i m s an dad d edm ore , w i th ou t su p p l em en ti n g th e ori ginal fa c ts a lle g e d

. In F e b r u a r y2 0 0 9 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e da ll o f B u r n s ’ s cla im s a g a in s t J u d g e M a y e s a n dth e C o u n ty , a n dB u r n s t im e lyf ile da n o tic e o f a p p e a l.

II . A n a ly s is A . St andard of

R evi ew W e rev i ew a distri ct cou rt’ s 1 2 (b)( 6 ) d i sm i ssa lof acom p l a i n t d e novo, a nd 14
w e r e vi e w adi s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r ul i ngs o n di s c o ve r y f o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. 15 B. J u d i c i a lI mm u n i t y & Mo n ell Im m u n ity A s t h e Su prem e C o u rt re cently i n st ructed, “[t] o su rv ive a m oti on to Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/08/2010G o nzale s v . Kay , 577 F. 3d 600, 603 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng A sh cr oft 16 v . I qb al , 1 2 9 S .C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (2 0 0 9 )) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d). Ash c rof tv . I qb al , 129 S. C t
. 1937, 1949 ( 2009)

. 17 S tu mp v . S

p a rk m a n , 43 5 U

. S. 3 49 , 3 56 , 9 8 S. Ct

. 1 09 9, 1 10 4, 5 5 L. Ed. 18 2d 331 ( 1978) (r e- st at i ng t hat“t he doc t r i ne o f j udi c i ali m m uni t y w as a p p lic a b le ins u its u n d e r. . . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 ") (in te r n a l cit a tio n s o m itt e d).

B a lla r dv . W

a ll, 413 F. 3d 510, 515 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) (c i t i ng Mi r e le s v. 19 W a c o , 5 0 2 U .S

. 9 , 1 1 -1 2 , 1 1 2 S .C t. 2 8 6 , 1 1 6 L .E d .2d 9 (19 9 1 ). McA le s te rv . B ro w n , 4 6 9 F .2 d1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 2 ). 20

- 8- d i sm i ss, a co m p l a i n t m u st con tainsu ff i ci en t fa ctu a lm a tter, a ccep tedas tru e, to

‘ s t a t e a c l a i m t o r e l i e f t h a t i s p l a u s ib l e o n i t s fa c e . ’” I n A s h c roft v . Iq b a l, t he 16 C our tnot ed that , t o a ss es s w het hert he c om pl ai ntal l ege s a s uf f i c i entfac t ual pr e di c at e t o sup port a § 19 83 c l ai m , c o ur t s m ay“be gi n b y t ak i ng no t e o f t he
e l e me n t s ap l a i n t i f

f mu s tp l e a d ” t o s t a t e s u c h c l a i m. 17 Ju dg es of

al ls t ripes enj oy absol u t e i m m u n i t y f rom sui t s f

or dam ages w h en t h e act i on com pl ai n ed of w as tak en in theirj u di ci alcap aci t y, ev en if t h at act i on “w a s i n erro r, w a s d on e m a l i ci ou sly, o r w a s i n ex cess of [th eir] au th ority. ” It 18 i s on l y for th ose n onj u d i ci a la cti on s or for a cti on s th a t a re tak en “in th e com p l ete abs enc e o f

al lj uri sdi c t i on” t hatj udges do notenj oy suc h i m m uni t y. 19 F or h i s com pl ai ntagai nstJudge M ayes t o s urvive, B urns had t o a l l ege fa c ts d ir e c te da t: ( I ) w het hert he pr ec i seac tc om pl ai ned o f i s a nor m alj udi c i al f unc t i o n; (ii) w h eth er th e a cts occu rred i na co u rtro o m o rap p rop ri a te a dju n c t s p a c e s a s th e ju d g e ’ s ch a m b e r s ; (i i i) w he t he rt he c o nt r o ve r s y c e nt e r e d a r o und a c as e pe ndi ng be f o r e t he c o ur t ; a nd (iv) w h e th e rth e a c ts a r o s e d ir e c tlyo u t o f av is it to th e ju d g e in h is of f i c i al c apac i t y. 20 Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/08/2010B ell A tla n tic Co rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 550 U

. S. 544, 555 ( 2007) (hol di ng t hat 21 ap le a d in gth a t o ffe r s m e r e ly“la b e ls a n dco n c lu s io n s . . . w ill n o t d o .”).

S o c . of S e

p a r a tio n is ts , In c ., v . He r m a n , 959 F

. 2d128 3, 128 6 ( 5th C i r. 22 1 9 9 4 ) (“T h i s cou rt an doth ers h a ve oft en h eld th a t plaintif fs l a ckstan d i n g to seek prospective rel i ef againstj u dg es because the l i kelih ood of f u t u re e n c o u n te r s is s p e c u la tiv e .”). A c c o r d, S c h e pp v . Fr e m o n t Co u n ty , 900 F. 2d 1448, 1452- 53 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) ( di sm i ss i ng § 1983 s ui tagai nsts t at e j udge w h o revokedpl ai n t i f f ’ s probati on an d h ol di n g n o act u alcontr oversy exi st en ce t o w ar r antdec l ar at or y r eli ef be c ause of

t he e xt r em e unl i kel ihood that pl ai nt i f f w oul d ev erbe s ubj ec tt o pr obat i on r evo c at i on pr oc ee di ngs bef or e that ju d g e a g a in ).

Mon el lv. D ep'tof

Soc. S ervs . , 436 U

. S. 658, 694, 98 S. C t
. 2018, 56 23 L .E d .2d 6 1 1 (19 7 8 ).

- 9- N ot on l y h a s B u rn s fa i l edi n tha t rega rd , bu t h e h a s u tterly fail edto id e n tifye v e n as c i n t i l lao f e v id e n c e th a t J u d g e M a y e s ’ s a c tio n s w e r e ta k e n in any t hi ng buthi s c ap ac i t y as t he j udg e c har ge d w i t h adj udi c at i ng ando ve r s e e i ng t h e t erm s of

B u rns’ s probati on as a defe n d a n t p rop erly ap pea ri n g i n t h e court t hathad j uri sdi c t i on o verhi m and hi s c as e. Bu r ns’ s unsupport ed, c onc l usi onal assert i on s th at Jud ge M ayes acted i n an “ ad m i n i st rat ive” or “u l t ra vi res”
c apac i t y ar e ther ef

or e unavail i ng. I n addi t i on, t he ve r y fac tt h a tB urns has 21
serv edh i s ti m e a n di s n o lon ge r ch a fi n g a ga i n st t h e con d i ti on s of com m u n i ty sup erv ision i m posedby Ju dg e M ayes sup ports t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof h i s c l ai m s f

or decl arator y an d i nj u n ct ive reli ef on grou n ds of

m oot n ess. 22 Si m i l ar l y, f

orhi s sui t a gai nstt he C ount y t o s urvive, B urns m usthave pl e ad e d fac t s t o s upp o r thi s c o nt e nt i o n t hatt he SAP Pro gr am c o ns t i t ut e d “t he
e xe c ut i o n o f

a n o f f i c i alpo l i cy orc us t o m o f t he m uni c i pa l i t y" t hatc aus e d the 23
c ons t i t ut i onali nj ury t hathe c l ai m s. W e havedef i ned a “ pol i c y orcust om ” tobe ei t h er: 1
. A p o lic y s ta te m e n t, o r d in a n c e , re g u la tio n , o rd e c is io n th a t is Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/08/2010B e n n e t v . C ity of S lid e ll, 735 F

. 2d861 , 862 ( 5th C i r. 198 4) ( en ban c) 24 (p e r c u ria m ). Kr u eg r ev . R e m ie r, 6 6 F

. 3 d7 5 , 7 7 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) (p e rc u r i a m) 25 (cita tion s o m itted ).

- 10- o f f i c i all y ad o pt e d a nd p r o m u l g a t e db yth em uni c i pa l i t y’ s l awm ak i ng of f i cers or by an of

f i ci alt o w h om th e l aw m ak ers h ave d el egated pol i cy- m ak i n g au t h orit y; or 2. Ape r s i s t e nt , w i de s pr e adpr ac ti ce of cit y of f i ci al s or em pl oyees, w hi c h, a l t houg h no ta ut ho r i z e d b y o f f i c i all y ad o pt e d a nd p rom u l ga tedp oli cy , is so co m m on a n dw ellsettl edas to co n sti tu te a custom t h at fai rly represents m u n i ci pa lpol i cy. A ctu alor c o ns t r uc t ivekno w l e dg e o f s uc h c us t o m m us t be a t t r ibut ab l e t o t he gov er ni ng body of

t he m uni c i pal i t y o rt o a n of f i c i alt o w hom t hat b o d yh a s d e le g a te dp o lic y -m a k in ga u th o r ity

. 24
A s t h e di st ri ctcourtcor rect l yn o t ed, “ [ a] l ocalj u dg e act i n g i n hi s orher j u di ci alcapaci t y i s n otcon si dered a l ocalg overnm en toff i ci alw h ose acti on s are att ribu t able t o t h e coun t y. ” Th e overw h el m i n g m aj orit y of t h e fact s adva n ced 25 by B ur ns f

i rm l y est abli shes t h at th e SA P P rogram w as desi gn ed byJu dg e M ayes i n h i s cap aci t y as a T exas st ate j u dg e respon sibl e foron e of t h e st ate’ s drug-c ou rt p r o g r a m s . De s p i t e t h i s t r u i s m , Bu r n s nev e r t h e l e s s c l a i m s t h a tt h e S AP P rogram i s a pol i cy of t h e C ou n t y becau se ( 1) C ou n t y l aw en f orcem en tof

f i cers carri ed ou t Ju dg e M ayes’ s orders, ( 2) a descri pti on of t h e SA P P rogram app ears o n a C o u n t yw e b s it e , a n d(3 ) a d e s c r ip t io n o f t h e S A P P r o g r a m o n J u d g e M a y e s ’s
w ebsi t e bears t h e copyri gh t s of both Ju dg e M ayes and t he County. Se t t i ng as i de t he fac tt hatt he C ount y’ s c opyr i ghtappear s to ref eronly t o the w eb page t em pl ate th at host s Jud ge M ayes’ s w ebsi t e, B u rns el sew h ere ci t es a descr i pti on of t h e S A P P rogram as on e “ creat ed” by Jud ge M ayes “ i n t h e 4 1 0 th D istr i ct C our t
. ” As a pr ot oc olof t he 410th Judi c i alD i st r i c tappl i c abl e t o c r i m i nal Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/08/2010T o n eyv . Sh o

p m ey e r, 14 6 F. 3d8 67 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 8) (pe rc ur i am ) c i t i ng 26 No b lev . W

h ite , 9 9 6 F .2 d7 9 7 , 7 9 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). Ash c rof tv . I qb al , 1 2 9 S .C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (20 0 9 ). 27

- 11- d e fe n d a n t s a p p e a r i n gb e f o r e aj udg e o f

t h e 4 1 0 t h J u d i c i a lDi s t r i c t , t h e S AP Pr o gr am i s c l e ar l y a s t at e j udi c i alpoli c y, no ta C o unt y po l i c y. The fac tt hatt he Count y’ s l aw enf

o r c e m e nto f

f i c e r s c ar r i e d o u tJ udg e M ay e s ’ s o r de r s i s o f no
m om ent
. For i dent i c al r eas ons , B urns has no tadduce d fac t s w hi c h sugge stt hat th e S A P P r o g r a m is a“p e r s is te n t w id e s p r e a dp r a c tic e ” t h a t m a yb e p r o p e r ly
a tt r ib u te dto th e C o u n ty
. B ecau se itha d d i sm iss e d B u rns’ s f ederalcl ai m s, t h e di st ri ctcourtal so d e c li n e dt o h e a rB u r n s ’s v a r io u s s t a t e c la im s . T h is w a s w e llw it h in th e c o u r t ’s di sc retion bec ause “ [ a] di st r i c tc our tm ay de c l i ne t o e xer c i ses uppl em ent al j u ri sdi ct i on over s t ate- l aw cl ai m s if t h e courtha s di sm i sse d a llcl ai m s over w h i ch it h a [d ] o r ig in a l ju r is d ic tio n .” 26 As the f

o r e go i ng m ak e s a bund ant l y c l e ar , Bur ns ha s no t“pl ead [ e d] t he fac t ualco nt e ntt hatal l o w s t he c o ur tt o dr aw t he r e as o nab l e i nfe r e nc e t hatt he de fe nda nti s l i ab l e f

o rt he m i s c o nduc ta l l e ge d. " The r ul i ngs and or de r s of t he 27 d is tr ic t c o u r t in th is ca s e a r e , ina ll re s p e c ts , A F F IR M E D

. Case: 09-20126 Document: 00511022513 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/08/2010