### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Fe br uary 6, 200 4 S es sio n

BAS IL MA RC EAU X v. THE C ITIZ EN DA VID NO RTO N Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 03-0368 W. F rank Brow n, III, Ch ancellor

F ILED FEBRUARY19, 2004
No. E2003-02199-COA- R3-CV

Ba sil Marce aux (“Plaintiff”) f iled this lawsuit ag ainst “The Citi zen David Norton.” David Nor ton (“D efe ndant”) is the Soddy Daisy City Court J udg e
. Pl a in

ti ff br oug ht this l awsuit bec ause D efe ndant had found him guilty

of violatingthe Tenne ssee F inancial Responsibility L aw a nd imposed a fine. Plaintiff claims these ac tions by Def endant violated his f

eder al constitutional rights. The Trial Court dismiss ed Plaintiff’s complaint afte r conc luding, inte r a lia , that Def endant was judicially

immune. Pla int if f a pp e a ls, and

we a ff ir m.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Cha nc e r y C our t A ffirm e d; Ca se Re m ande d.

D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he cour t, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and W I L L I AM H. I

NMAN , S R
. J ., joined.

Ba sil Marce aux, pr o s e Ap pe lla nt.

Ronald D. Wells and Stacy Ly nn Arc her, Chattanoog a, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llee David Norton.R ul e 10 o f the R ul es of

t he C our t of

Ap peal s provi des : T hi s Co ur t , wi t h t he concu r r enc e of al l j udges 1 p art i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af f i rm, r everse or mo d i f

y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt b y m em o randum op i ni o n when a f ormal opi ni on woul d hav e n o prece dent i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y m emo r andum o pi ni on i t sh al l b e des i gn at ed

“ M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N , ” s hal l not be publ i s hed, and s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed
c a se
. I n his c o m p la int, P la intiff a lso a lleg e d a vio la tio n o f t h e D e c la ra tio n o f Ind e p e n d e n c e a n d un su c c e ssfu lly 2

so u g h t t o a m e n d his c o m p la int to a lleg e a vio la tio n o f t h e E m a n c ip a tio n P ro c la m a tio n
. -2- M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION 1
Bac kgr ound
Plaintiff was issued a c itation by the Soddy

Daisy Police Depa

rtment for violating the Tenne ssee F inancial Responsibility L aw, Te nn. C o d e An n. § 55-12-101 et seq. On Fe bruar y 18, 2003, the matter was hear d in the Soddy Daisy City Court, J udg e David Norton presiding . Plaintiff was found guilty

and fine d $100 plus court costs.
On M ar ch 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , P l ai n t i ff , p ro ce ed i n g pro s e , filed t his lawsuit in the Hamilton County Cha nc e ry Court . Pl a int if

f b ro ught s uit

a g a ins t “ Th e Citi zen

Da vid No rt on .” I t is e xtre me ly difficult to deciphe r Plaintiff’s various claims ag ainst Defe ndant. It is clear, how ever , that Plaintiff claims Def

endant violated se vera l of his fede ral c onstitut ional ri gh t s b as ed solely on Def endant’ s findinghim guilty

of violatingthe Tenne ssee F inancial Responsibility L aw a nd imposing a f

ine. 2
Def endant f iled a motion to dism iss arguing the Trial Court lacke d s ubject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Def endant a lso maintained that he wa s immune from suit under the doctrine of

judicial immunit y
. The Trial Court g rante d Def endant’ s motion t o dismiss . Plaintiff appea ls claiming dismissal of his action wa s err or. Discussion
Our s tand ard

of re vie w a s to the g ra

nti ngof a mot ion to d ism iss is s e t out in

Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co. , 945 S.W .2d 714 (Tenn. 1997) . In Ste in , our Supreme Court e x plained:

A R ule 12 .0 2( 6) , T e nn . R. Ci v. P ., mot ion to d ism iss fo r f

a ilure to state a claim upon which relief can be g rante d tests only the leg al sufficie ncy

of the c omplaint, not the str en g th of a plaintiff' s proof. Suc h a mot ion a dmi ts the tr

uth of a ll r e le va nt a nd mate ri a l ave rm e nts contained in the c omplaint, but asserts that su ch fac ts do not c on sti tut e a

c a us e of act io n. In c on sid e ri nga mot ion to d ism iss , courts should construe the complaint libera lly in favor of

the plaintiff, takin ga ll a ll egati on s o f f a c t a s tr ue , a nd de ny the mot ion

un le ss i t appea rs that the plaintiff c an prove no set of fact s in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief. Cook v. S

pinnaker's of-3- Rivergate, I

nc ., 878 S.W .2d 934, 938 (Tenn. 1994 ). I n considering thi s a pp e a l f rom the tri a l c ourt ' s g ra

nt o f t he de fe nd ant' s mo tio n to dismiss , we take all alleg ations of fact i n the plaintiff' s complaint as tr ue , a nd re vie w the low e r c ourt ' s le g a l c on c lus ion s de novo with no presumption of cor

rec tness. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Owens v. Trucks t o p s of America , 915 S.W .2d 420, 424 (Tenn. 1996) ; Cook, su pra
. Stein v. Dav idson Hotel Co. , 945 S.W .2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997)

.

As s tate d p r e v io u s ly , Pl a inti f

f c la im s D e f

e n d an t v io late d

s e v e r a l o f

h is f eder al c on sti tut ion a l ri g hts so le ly be c a us e he fo un d Pla int if

f guil ty of vio latin gthe F ina

nc ia l Re sp on sib ili ty L aw a nd imp os e d a

fi ne . G ivi ngPla intiff

the be ne fi t of

e ve ry do ub t, w e wi ll i nte rp re t hi s la ws uit a s th ou g h it

wa s b ro ug ht p ur su ant t o 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 83 wh ic h p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: Every person who, unde r color of any statute, ordinanc e, re gulation, cu s t o m , or usag e, of a

ny State or Ter

ritory or the District of C o l umbia, subjects, or c auses to be subje cted, a ny citizen of the United S t at es o r other pe rson within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

rig hts, privilege s, or immuniti es s ecured by the Constit ution and laws, shall be li able to the party injured in an a ction at law, suit in equity , or other p ro per pr ocee ding f or re dress, e x cept th at i n an y

action brought ag ainst a judicial off icer for a n act or omission t aken in suc h office r' s judicial capa city , inj u n cti ve re lief shall not be g rante d unless a dec laratory decr ee w as vi o l ated or decla ratory relief was unavailable....
In King v. Love , 766 F.2d 962 ( 6 Cir.), cert. de nied 474 U.S. 971 (1985), the plaintiff th broug ht a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for monetary damag es ag ainst Robert L ove, a Memphis Cit y Court J udg e. The plaintiff claimed, a mong othe r thing s, that L ove unlawf ully incar cer ated him on Marc h 4, 1980. In dismiss ing this aspe ct of the pla intiff’s claim, the United States Court of A ppeals for the Sixth C ir c uit

he ld t hat:
wher e a judg e of a

cou rt o f l i mited jurisdiction enga g es in judicial acts in dec iding a

case over which the cour t has s ub j ect matter jur isd ic tio n, he is a

bs olute ly immun e fr om s uit s f or dama g e s e ve n if he e xce e ds his a

uth or ity or his jur isd ic tio n. Sin c e the Me mph is C ity Court ha d s ub

je c t matt er jur isd ic tio n o ve r t he dr ivi ngwh ile intox icated c harg e ag ainst King and since i n ca rc erating K ing f or contempt o f

c o urt w a s a

ju d ic ia l a c t, K in gma

y n o t s u e Ju d g e L ove fo r d ama g e s st e mmi ngfr om t he Ma rc h 4 , 1 98 0 in c ide nt.-4-

King , 76 6 F. 2 d at 9 68. Simi larly , in W hite v . G e rb itz , 892 F.2d 457 ( 6 Cir. 1989), the Plaintiff th
c la ime d h e wa s impr op e rl y arr e ste d a nd de ta ine d f

or 28 8 d ay s b e c a

us e he wa s a

mate ri a l w itn e ss t o a homicide investig ation. The Six th Circuit affirme d the dis m i s s al of the pla intiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim ag ainst the Chattanoog a Specia l Cit y J udg e after concluding the judg e wa s perf orming a judicial func tion and was e ntitled t o absolutely immunit y
. Id . at 462. Ac c or d , Cross v. W inningham , No. 88-6120, 869 F .2d 1489 (Table ), 1989 U.S. App. L EXI S 1972 (6 Cir. th 1989)(holdingthe def

endant, a Special City

J udg e for

Chattanoog a, wa s perf

orminga judicial function and “ absolutely

immune” from moneta

ry damag es in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleg ing the judge imposed an illeg al sentenc e af ter findingthe plaintiff guilty of public drunke nness).
Th e pr e se nt c a se inv olv e s v ari ou s f e de ral c on sti tut ion a l c la ims by Pla int if f a g a ins t Def endant ba sed solely

on Def endant’ s car

rying out his officia l duties as t he S oddy Daisy City Court J udg e. The S oddy Daisy City Court had subj ect matter jurisdiction over the c itation and Def endant w a s c l e ar l y

p e r f o r m i n ga j u d i c i a l f un c t i o nw h e nh e f

o un d P l a i n t i f f gu i l ty an d i mp o s e d a f

i n e
. In sh or t, D e fe nd ant s imp ly

wa s d oin ghis job a s a

jud g e . Pl a int if

f c ann ot p ro c e e d o n h is c la ims be c a us e De fe nd ant i s a

bs olute ly immun e . A s su c h, the Tr ia l Co ur t c or re c tly g ra nte d De fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s. Conclusion

The judg ment of the Tr ial Court is affirmed, a nd this c ause is r emande d to the Trial Court for such further proce eding s as m ay be required, if any , consistent with this Opini on and for c oll e c tio n o f t

he c os ts b e low . T he c os ts o n a pp e a l are a sse sse d a g a ins t th e Ap pe lla nt, B a sil Marc eaux and his surety , if any

.

___________________________________ D. MI CHAEL

SW I NEY, JUDGE