1 United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 95-10591.

Melissa V. MAYS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Ben D. SUDDERTH; Thomas Pack; Erath County, Texas, Defendants,

and

David Coffee, Defendant-Appellant.

Oct. 15, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

DENNIS, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal we determine whether a sheriff is absolutely immune from suit and liabilit y for

damages in a civil action brought against him pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injuries resulting from

the sheriff's attachment of the plaint iff in accordance with a judicial order, facially valid and within

the court's jurisdiction. The district court, in ruling on the defendant sheriff's motion for summary

judgment, held, in pertinent part, that the sheriff was only qualifiedly immune from suit and refused

to enter a judgment dismissing the plaint iff's § 1983 claims against the sheriff i n his individual

capacity. We conclude that a government o fficial's strict compliance with a facially valid judicial

order issued by a court acting within its jurisdiction clothes the official with the abs o lut e judicial

immunit y enjoyed by the judge issuing the order. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's ruling

that Sheriff Coffee is not entitled to absolute immunit y, render partial summary judgment dismissing

the § 1983 action for damages against the Sheriff, and remand the case to the district court for further

proceedings.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW1 The June 11, 1990 subpoena, which listed Mays' former address at 841 Bridle, Fort Worth,

Tarrant County, Texas, was returned unserved with the notation, "moved to Aledo [Parker

County, Texas]." The second subpoena, addressed to same street address in Aledo, Texas, was

returned unserved by the Parker County sheriff's office with the comment, "Aledo & Weatherford

said there is no address by the name of Bridle."

2 The parties' versions of what happened in this meeting are divergent. The plaintiff alleges that

defendant Sudderth informed Judge Jones that he had attempted to subpoena Mays and that she

had not appeared; that defendant Pack advised Judge Jones and Sudderth that the subpoenas had

been returned unserved; that Sudderth nonetheless insisted that a writ of attachment issue for

Mays despite the lack of a legal basis for her arrest; and that Judge Jones and defendants

Sudderth and Pack reached an agreement that Mays should be arrested despite the absence of

legal cause and the lack of a sworn application for her arrest. The defendants presented summary

judgment evidence that defendant Sudderth informed Judge Jones at the meeting that Mays was

aware of the attempts to serve her with a subpoena, was avoiding service and would be leaving

the state with her parents the next day. Consequently, Judge Jones instructed Sudderth to write

Mays' name on his application for writ of attachment, and ordered defendant Pack to prepare a

writ of attachment for Mays and the other individuals named in the application. For purposes of

our ruling, the disparities in the parties' versions of what happened in the judge's chamber are not

relevant.

2 This suit arises out of the arrest and detention of the plaintiff, Melissa Mays, pursuant to a

writ of attachment ordered by Judge Don Jones, a duly elected judge of the 266th Judicial District

of Texas, and issued by defendant Thomas Pack, the District Clerk of that court. During June and

July 1990, Judge Jones presided over the capital murder trial of Jerry Roland Garrett, who received

legal representation from defendant Ben D. Sudderth. In the course of that representation, defendant

Sudderth sought to subpoena Mays as a material defense witness and, at his request, defendant Pack

twice issued a subpoena to secure her appearance at trial. Both subpoenas, issued respectively on

June 11 and June 15, 1990, were returned unserved because they did not contain a correct address

for Mays. 1

Mr. Garrett personally filed an application for writ of a ttachment, dated Jul y 3, 1990,

requ est ing the court to issue a writ of attachment against two persons, other than Mays, who had

failed to appear at trial in accordance with subpoenas served upon them. Some time thereafter, Judge

Jones met in his chambers with defendants Sudderth and Pack concerning the application. Defendant

Sudderth orally informed Judge Jones that Mays was a material witness whose presence he had been

unable to secure although he had unsucces sfully attempted to serve her with a subpoena. 2 Judge3 Mays' parents were not permitted to post bail, although the defendants presented summary

judgment evidence that she was released to her parents' custody the next morning before her court

appearance.

4 The complaint against Sudderth was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 3.1(h) of

the Local Rules of the Northern District of Texas due to Mays' failure to move for default

judgment in light of Sudderth's failure to timely answer her complaint.

5 Mays additionally brought state law claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, false arrest and false imprisonment, under the district court's supplemental

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The district court found that the state tort claims against Pack

and Coffee were barred by judicial immunity as the claims were not based on any tortious conduct

of the defendants and arose solely from their compliance with Judge Jones' order of attachment.

This ruling is not before us.

3 Jones instructed Sudderth to add Mays' name in handwriting to the application for writ of attachment

and ordered Pack to issue a writ of attachment for Mays. A "writ of attachment on body," signed by

Judge Jones, was issued on July 11, 1990, ordering "any sheriff or constable within the State of Texas

... to forthwith attach the body of Malissa [sic] Mays

... and deliver said body safely to the possession

of David Coffee, Sheriff, Stephenville, Erath County, TX to be produced before the 266th Judicial

District Court of Erath County, Texas, on the 12th day of July, 19__ at 9:00 o'clock A.M. ..."

On J u ly 11, 1990, Mays was taken into custody by Parker County Sheriff's deputies at her

parent's home in Aledo. She was subsequently picked up by deputies of Erath County Sheriff David

Coffee, the appellant herein, and booked into the Erath County jail pursuant to the writ of attachment

served on Sheriff Coffee's office. Mays alleges that defendant Coffee complied with the writ despite

knowledge that no legal basis existed for her attachment because the subpoenas that had been issued

for Mays had been returned unserved. Mays was held overnight at the Erath County jail 3 and taken

to court the next morning where she testified briefly that she had no knowledge of facts relevant to

the case and was dismissed.

Mays brought a § 1983 action seeking compensatory and exemplary damages and injunctive

and declaratory relief a gainst attorney Sudderth, 4 District Clerk Pack, Sheriff Coffee and Erath

County, Texas. 5 Pack and Coffee were sued in both their individual and official capacities. Mays

alleged that Sheriff Coffee, "kn o wing that the first two subpoenas naming the Plaintiff had been6 The district court held that Sheriff Coffee in his individual capacity is not liable on the denial

of bail claim. This ruling is not before this Court.

7 In Mitchell, the Court held that the denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable

collateral order to the extent that the lower court decision turns on legal questions. Mitchell, 472

4 returned unserved to the Erath County Sheriff's Department, and kn owing that there was no legal

basis for the arrest of the Plaint iff, agreed and conspired with Sudderth, Pack and Judge Jones to

serve the unlawful Writ of Attachment and cause the illegal arrest of the Plaintiff." 6 Defendants Pack,

Coffee and Erath County jointly filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing in pertinent part that

Pack and Coffee were absolutely immune from suit based on their execution of Judge Jones' order.

The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of District Clerk Pack on the ground

that, in his individual capacity, he was absolutely immune from Mays' § 1983 damages claims. The

court held, however, that Sheriff Coffee enjoyed only qualified immunit y and that plaint iff was entitled

to seek discovery on her § 1983 claims against him. Sheriff Coffee here appeals the district court's

denial of his summary judgment motion.

II.

DISCUSSION

A.

Appellate Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

Although ordinarily only final judgments are reviewable on appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, "the

denial of a substantial claim of absolute immunit y is an order appealable before final judgment, for

the essence of absolute immunit y is its possessor's entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct

in a civil damages action." M itchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L.Ed.2d

411 (1985)(citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982)); s ee

Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Dept. of Public Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 848-49 ( Kermit Constr.

Corp. v. Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceno, 547 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1976) 5th Cir.1991). We thus have

jurisdiction to review Sheriff Coffee's claim that the district court erred in denying him summary

judgment on the ground that he is not absolutely immune from suit. 7 We review the district court'sU.S. at 530, 105 S.Ct. at 2817. The Court did not similarly limit the appealability of an

interlocutory order denying absolute immunity, see id. at 525, 105 S.Ct. at 2815, and we need not

determine at this juncture whether such a limitation is appropriate. The parties do not dispute that

Sheriff Coffee acted pursuant to a facially valid order issued by a judge acting within his

jurisdiction. The question presented here is whether, given such facts, Sheriff Coffee is absolutely

immune from suit and liability. This is a question of law. See Babcock v. Tyler, 884 F.2d 497,

501 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1072, 110 S.Ct. 1118, 107 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1990).

5 decision to deny summary judgment de novo, applying the same criteria employed by the court in the

first instance. S ee Johnson v. Odom, 910 F.2d 1273, 1276-77 (5th Cir.1 990)(denial of qualified

immunit y reviewed de novo ), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 936, 111 S.Ct. 1387, 113 L.Ed.2d 443 (1991).

Thus, we will reverse if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file,

together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

B.

Absolute Immunity

Sheriff Coffee contends that he shares Judge Jones' absolute immunit y from suit for claims

arising from the arrest and detention of Mays pursuant to the writ of attachment issued by the judge.

The district court, relying on a decision that recognized that "[s]heriffs enjoy qualified immunit y from

damages for official actions taken in good faith," Hamill v. Wright, 870 F.2d 1032, 1036 (5th

Cir.1989), held that Coffee was entitled only to qualified immunit y for his actions in executing Judge

Jones' order. The district court, however, erred in resting its analysis of the question solely on Sheriff

Coffee's identity as sheriff, rather than evaluating his role in the context of this case. In order to

determine "whether particular actions of government officials fit within a common law tradition of

absolute immunit y, or only the more general standard of qualified immunit y, [courts] have applied

a "functional approach,' ... which looks to "the nature of the function performed, not the identity of

the actor who performed it.' " B uckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 2613,

125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993)(quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229, 108 S.Ct. 538, 545, 98

L.Ed.2d 555 (1988)). Whether Sheriff Coffee is entitled to absolute immunity requires us to evaluate8 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "purports to subject "[e]very person' acting under color of state law to

liability for depriving any other person in the United States of "rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 484, 111 S.Ct. 1934,

1938, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991).

6 his role in executing a facially valid order in light of the judicial process of which he was a part.

It is well esta blished that judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in

judicial proceedings. P ierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217-18, 18 L.Ed.2d 288

(1967). "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done

malicio usly, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has

acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction.' " S tump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct.

1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978)(quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall (80 U.S.) 335, 351, 20 L.Ed.

646 (1 872)). This broad scope of immunity is afforded to judges for actions taken within their

jurisdiction because their role in the judicial system requires that they enjoy freedom to determine the

law unfettered by the threat of collateral attacks against t he judge personally. Absolute judicial

immunit y is just ified "by t

he long-settled understanding that the independent and impartial exercise

of judgment vital to the judiciary might be impaired by exposure to potential damages l iabilit y."

Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435, 113 S.Ct. 2167, 2171, 124 L.Ed.2d 391

(1993); s ee also Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1943, 114 L.Ed.2d 547

(1991)("Absolute immunit y is designed to free the judici al process from the harassment and

in t imidation associated with litigation."); P ierson, 386 U.S. at 554, 87 S.Ct. at 1218 (absolute

immunit y is afforded " "not for the protecti on or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the

benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions

with independence and without fear of consequences.' ")(quoting Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220,

223 (1868)).

Absolute immunit

y applies to the judicial acts of judges acting within their jurisdiction even

in suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, despite that statute's obvious focus on the unlawful

acts of state officials. 8 S ee Pierson, 386 U.S. at 554, 87 S.Ct. at 1218 (secti on 1983 does not9 The Court observed that "[t]he common-law immunity of a prosecutor is based upon the same

considerations that underlie the common-law immunities of judges and grand jurors acting within

the scope of their duties. These include concern that harassment by unfounded litigation would

cause a deflection of the prosecutor's energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he

would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his

public trust." Imbler, 424 U.S. at 422-23, 96 S.Ct. at 991.

7 abrogate absolute immunit y afforded judges under the common law). Although the presumption in

§ 1983 actions is that government officials are protected in the exercise of their duties by qualified

rather than absolute immunit y, see Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486-87, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1939, 114

L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (citations omitted), § 1983 " "is to be read "in harmony with general principles

of tort immunities and defenses rather than in derogation of them.' " I d. at 484, 111 S.Ct. at 1938

(citing Imbler v. Pa chtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418, 96 S.Ct. 984, 989, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)). To

determine whether a government official is absolutely immune from suit, the court must "undertake[

] a considered inquiry into the immunit y historically accorded the relevant official at common law and

the interes t s behind it.' " A ntoine, 508 U.S. at 432-33, 113 S.Ct. at 2169-70 (quoting Butz v.

Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2912, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). Thus, i n I mbler v.

Pachtman, the Court concluded that the rationale underlying the absolute immunit y accorded under

common law to prosecutors for the initiation of suit and presentation of the state's case "dictate[s]

the same absolute immunit y under § 1983 that the prosecutor enjoys at common law." 9 424 U.S. at

427, 96 S.Ct. at 993. The Court observed that such immunity is necessary to ensure "the vigorous

and fearless performance of the pros ecut o r's duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the

criminal justice sys tem ." I d. at 427-28, 96 S.Ct. at 993-94. In defining the parameters of

prosecutorial absolute immunit y, however, the Court has found that prosecutors retain only qualified

immunit y for giving legal advice to police, B urns, 500 U.S. at 492-94, 111 S.Ct. at 1942-43, for

participating in investigatory functions prior to establishing probable cause or initiating suit, Buckley,

509 U.S. at 274-75, 113 S.Ct. 2616-17, and for making out-of-court statements to the press. I d. at

277-78, 113 S.Ct. at 2618. In so concluding, the Court observed that the common law at the time

of § 1983's enactment did not provide absolute immunity for these functions. See Burns, 500 U.S.10 Professors Prosser and Keeton have observed in their treatise on tort law that

[S]o long as [a warrant] is valid upon its face, the weight of authority probably is

that the officer is privileged to execute it even though he has personal knowledge

of facts which should prevent the arrest, and may safely leave all responsibility to

the court. 16

16 People v. Warren, N.Y. 1843, 5 Hill 440; Watson v. Watson, 1 832, 9 Conn.

140; O'Shaughnessy v. Baxter, 1876, 121 Mass. 515; Heath v. Halfhill, 1989, 106 Iowa

11, 76 N.W. 522; Rice v. Miller, 1888, 70 Tex. 613, 8 S.W. 317; Second Restatement of

Torts, § 124, Comment b. Contra: Telefsen v. Fee, 1897, 168 Mass. 188, 46 N.E. 562;

Leachman v. Dougherty, 1876, 81 Ill. 324.

P ROSSER AND K

EETON ON T ORTS , § 25, at 150 (5th ed. 1984).

8 at 493-94, 111 S.Ct. at 1943; Buckley, 509 U.S. at 275, 277, 113 S.Ct. at 2617-18.

When 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was enacted in 1871, the common law provided absolute immunit y

to government o fficials in their execution of facial ly valid judicial orders entered by a court of

competent jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court observed that year in Erskine v. Hohnbach:

The duties of the collector in the enforcement of the tax assessed were purely ministerial. The

assessment, duly certified to him, was h is authority to proceed, and, like an execution to a

sheriff, regular on its face, issued by a tribunal having jurisdiction of the subject-m atter, constituted his protection.

Whatev er may have been the conflict at one time in the adjudged cases, as to the

extent of protecti on afforded to ministerial officers acting in obedience to process, or orders

issued to them by tribunals or officers invested by law w it h authority to pass upon and

determine particular f

act s, and render judgment thereon, it is well settled now, that if the

officer or tribunal possess jurisdiction over the subject-matter upon which judgment is passed,

with power to issue an order of process for the enforcement of such judgment, and the order

or process issued thereon to the ministerial officer is regular on its face, showing no departure

from the law, or defect of jurisdiction over the person or property affected, then, and in such

cases, the order or process will give full and entire protection to the ministerial officer in its

regular enforcement against any prosecution which the party aggrieved thereby may institute

against him, although serious errors may have been committed by the officer or tribunal in

reaching the conclusion or judgment upon which the order or process is issued. 2

2 Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wendell, 171; E arl v. Camp, 16 Id. 562; C hegaray v. Jenkins, 5 New York, 376; Sprague v. Birchard, 1 Wisconsin, 457.

81 U.S. 613, 14 Wall. 613, 20 L.Ed. 745 (1871); s ee Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. 171

(discussing cases). 10

The significant reasons underlying the grant of absolute immunit y to those o fficials who carry

out the fac ially valid orders of a court with proper jurisdiction are not difficult to discern.11 In Burns v. Reed, the Supreme Court denied absolute immunity to prosecutors for advising

police officers, observing that "it is incongruous to allow prosecutors to be absolutely immune

from liability for giving advice to the police, but to allow police officers only qualified immunity

for following the advice.... Ironically, it would mean that the police, who do not ordinarily hold

law degrees, would be required to know the clearly established law, but prosecutors would not."

500 U.S. at 495, 111 S.Ct. at 1944. In like vein, it is incongruous to shield the learned judge

from liability while exposing to suit the typically less-schooled official following his orders.

9 "[E]nforcing or executing a court order is int rinsically associated with a judicial proceeding." B ush

v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir.1994). As the Eighth Circuit has o bserved in addressing the

immunit y afforded prison wardens for continuing to incarcerate a prisoner pursuant to a valid court

order, absolute immunit

y is essential to insure " "[t]he fearless and unhesitating execution of court

orders [ ] necessary if the court's authority and ability to function are to remain uncompromised.' "

Patterson v. Von Reisen, 999 F.2 d 1235, 1240-41 (8th Ci r.1993)(quoti ng C overdell v. Dept. of

Social and Health Services, State of Washington, 834 F.2d 758, 765 (9th Cir.1987); s ee also Valdez

v. City and County of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir.1989). Indeed, not only may the threat

of litigation impede an o fficial's compliance with judicial orders, but "fear of bringing down litigation

on the [official] might color a court's judgment in some cases." C overdell, 834 F.2d at 765 (9th

Cir.1987)(quoting Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceno

, 547 F.2d 1, 3 (1st

Cir.1976 )). Moreover, because judges are absolutely immune from suit for judicial actions taken

pursuant to their jurisdiction, to deny similar protecti on to government o fficials executing their orders

would render the o fficials " "lightning rod[s] for harassing litigation aimed at judicial orders.' " Id.

at 1289 (quoting T & W Inv. Co. v. Kurtz, 588 F.2d 801, 802 (10th Cir.1978)); s ee Patterson, 999

F.2d at 1240; C

overdell, 834 F.2d at 765; K ermit Constr. Corp., 547 F.2d at 3. We note, moreover,

the unfairness of imposing liabilit y in this context—an official charged with executing a facially valid

court order has no choice but to do so. Government officials "should not be required to make the

Hobson 's cho ice between disobeying the court order or being haled into court to answer for

damages." P atterson, 999 F.2d at 1240; s ee also Valdez, 878 F.2d at 1289 (citing T & W Co., Inc.

v. Kurtz, 588 F.2d 801, 802 (10th Cir.1978)); U nited Steelw orker's of

America, AFL-CIO v. Bishop,

598 F.2d 408, 414 (5th Cir.1979); M cCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1, 5 n. 11 (4th Cir.1972). 11 To12 Mays' reliance on Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986),

Brow n v. Byer, 870 F.2d 975 (5th Cir.1989), Gay v. Wall, 761 F.2d 175 (4th Cir.1985), and

Crane v. State of Texas, 759 F.2d 412 (5th Cir.), amended in part on denial of rehearing, 766

F.2d 193 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1020, 106 S.Ct. 570, 88 L.Ed.2d 555 (1985), is

misplaced. In Malley, the Supreme Court held that a police officer's discretionary act in seeking a

warrant was entitled only to qualified immunity irrespective of his success in obtaining the

warrant. 475 U.S. at 340-43, 106 S.Ct. at 1096-97; see also Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 362

(2nd Cir.1987)(distinguishing Malley because the investigators in Barr did not apply for the

warrant but simply executed it in a concededly proper manner). In Brown, this court affirmed a

judgment against a deputy constable who had altered a warrant issued for the arrest of an

individual sharing the plaintiff's name, 870 F.2d at 976-77, and the court questioned whether a

warrant thus altered could be considered "facially valid." Id. at 979. In Gay, the Fourth Circuit

held that the plaintiff stated a cause of action where he alleged that the police detained him

pursuant to a warrant after they learned that he was in fact innocent, 761 F.2d at 178-79, and thus

addressed conduct of the police beyond the scope of the arrest warrant. At issue in Crane was a county's practice of issuing misdemeanor writs of capias through the clerk of court without an

initial finding of probable cause by a magistrate, 759 F.2d at 414; thus, the case concerned the

actions of government officials in the complete absence of a judicial order issued by a court of

competent jurisdiction.

10 hold otherwise would require sheriffs and other court officers enforcing facially valid orders "to act

as pseudo-appellate courts scrutinizing the orders of judges." I d. at 1289. Such a result "is obviously

untenable." Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1239 (7th Cir.1986).

Consequently, we conclude that an official acting within the scop e o f his authority is

absolutely immune from a suit for damages to the extent that the cause of ac t io n arises from his

compliance with a faciall

y valid judicial order issued by a court acting within its jurisdiction. We

therefore apply this rule to the case at hand.

Ms. Mays concedes that Judge J o nes acted within the scope of his jurisdiction and thus

enjoys absolute immunit

y from actions arising from his issuance of a writ of attachment to secure her

presence as a witness in a trial over which he presided. Moreover, there is no question that Sheriff

Coffee's conduct in arresting and detaining Mays was in compliance with this facially valid court order

compelling him to do so. Mays contends, however, that Sheriff Coffee's alleged knowledge that there

was no legal cause for the writ of attachment erodes any immunit y the sheriff may have. Ms. Mays

has not cited an y case denying absolute immunity to government officials complying with facially

valid court orders, and cases abound to the contrary. S ee, e.g., Bush, 38 F.3d at 847 (citing cases);

Valdez, 878 F.2d at 1288 (same); H enry, 808 F.2d at 1239 (same). 12 Moreover, Mays makes no11

claim that Sheriff Coffee was in possession of any information that was not known by the j udge

issuing the writ of attachment. In effect, what Ms. Mays seeks is a requirement that Sheriff Coffee

act as an appellate court evaluating the legality of a decision issued by a judge trained in the law and

authorized to issue such orders. As we observed above, such a result is untenable.

In reversing, we note the limit s of our decision. We do not hold that a state officer may never

be held liable for the unquestioning execution of a judicial directiv e. "There are limits to how

unlawful an order can be and still immunize the officer executing it." Turney v. O'Toole, 898 F.2d

1470, 1474 (10th Cir.1990). As the officer's immunity derives fro m t hat o f the issuing judge, the

order must be one for which the judge is absolutely immune from suit. I d. Thus, we do not find that

a state official would be absolutely immune from suit based on compliance with an order issued by

a judge acting "in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." S ee Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357,

98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Moreover, an official acting outside the scope of his

authority does not enjoy absolute immunit y for his actions. T

urney, 898 F.2d at 1474 (citing Cok v.

Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1989), and Williams v. Wood, 612 F.2d 982, 985 (5th Cir.1980)).

Finally, our ruling does not address the liabilit y of an officer whose conduct in executing a facially

valid judicial order exceeds the scope of that order.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's denial of summary judgment in favor of Sheriff

Coffee on appellee's § 1983 claims for damages against him in his individual capacity is reversed,

summary judgment is granted in favor of the Sheriff dismissing that suit insofar as it seeks damages,

and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.