# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s

For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No . 1 8 -3 4 50

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Hen ry Ham i l to n

ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Pl a in t i

f f - Ap p el l an t

v

.

Ci t y o f Hay t i

, M i s s o u ri

, et al

.

l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l Def

en d a n t s - Ap p el l ees

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ap p eal fro m

Un i t ed St at es Di s t ri ct Co u rt
fo r t h e Eas t ern Di s t ri ct o f M is s o u ri - Cap e Gi rard eau

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Su bm i t t ed : Sep tem

ber 2 4, 2 0 19

Fi l ed : J an u ary 2 8 , 2 0 2 0

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

Befo re LOKEN, COLLOTON, an d KOBES, Ci rcu i t J u d g es

.

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

LOKEN, Ci rcu i t J u d g e.

On J u l y 2 8

, 2 0 1 1

, Am

y Leean n In m an , m an ag er o f t h e Cl ev el an d Ap art m en t s

i n H ay t i, a s m al l t own i n s o u t h eas t ern M i s s ou ri

, cal l ed t he p o li ce t o rep o rt t h at Hen ry

Ham i l to n “ b eg an cu rs i n g ” an d “ t h rew an i n k p en ” at h er w h i l e ap pl y i n g fo r p u b l i c

h o u s in g

. Gl en d a Ov erb ey , t h e p o l ice d ep art m en t recep t i o n is t an d In m a n ’s m o t h er,

rad i o ed t he t w o o ffi cers on d ut y

. Offi cer Dav i d In m an , In m an ’ s b oy fri en d an d n o w

h er h u s b an d (“ O ffi cer In m an ”), res p o nd e d

. I n m an p rep ared a “ n o t i ce ag ai n s tt res pas s ” b arri n g H am il t o n fro m en t eri n g t he ap art m en t co m p lex d u e t o “ as s au l t o n

m an ag em en t ” an d s i g n ed a co m p l ai n t at t h e H a y t i Po l ice s t at i o n , wi t n es s ed by

Ov erb ey , ch arg i n g Ham il t o n wi t h Peace Di s t u rb an ce an d As sau l t

.

T h e n ex t d ay , a p o l i ce o ffi cer in a n ei g hb o ri n g t o w n arres t ed Ham i l t o n f o r

“ el u d i n g a p ol ice offi cer.” Offi cer In m an was d i s p at ch ed an d s erv ed In m an ’ s n o t i ce

ag ai n s t t res p as s

. H am il t on was t ak en t o t h e Pem is co t Co u n ty J ai l

. Ov erb ey , wh o al s o

s e r v e d as cl erk an d ad m i n i s trat o r fo r t h e Hay t i m u ni ci p al co u rt

, i s s u ed a war r a n t

co m m an d i n g t h at H am il t o n b e arres t ed an d b ro u g h t b efo re t h e m u n i ci p al co u rt o n t h e

p en di n g ch arg es in In m an ’ s co m p lai n t

. Ov erb ey si g n ed t h e warran t fo r M u n i ci p al

J u d g e Cal v i n Rag l an d

, u s i n g a ru b b er s t am p h e p ro v id ed

, an d fax ed i t t o t h e Co u n t y

J ai l

. Th e warran t s et as “ co n d i t i o n s o f rel eas e” t h e p o st i ng o f a cas h b o n d i n t h e

am ou n t of $ 1 ,0 2 2 .5 0

. H am il t on d i d n o t p o s t t he cas h b o n d. On Au g u s t 4

, s ev en day s

aft er h e was d et ai n ed u n d er t h e warran t

, Ham i l t on m ad e hi s i n i t i al ap p earan ce b efo re

J u d g e Rag l an d

. Hay t i Ci t y At t o rn ey Lawren ce Do rro h s i g n e d an i n fo rm at i o n

p rep a r e d b y Ov erb ey an d ag reed t o d i s m i s s t he as s au l t ch arg e. Ham i l t on p l ead ed

g u il t y t o t h e p eace d i s t u rb an ce ch arg e. J u dg e Rag lan d s en t en ced Ham i lt o n t o t i m e

s erv ed an d o rd ered h i s rel eas e.

Ham i l t o n fi l ed t h i s act i o n ag ai n s t t he Ci t y o f H ay t i

, Ov erb ey , J u d g e Rag l an d,

an d In m an

. Co u n t I o f t h e co m pl ai n t s o u g h t d am ag es an d i n ju n ct i v e an d d ecl arat o ry

rel i ef u n der 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3

, al l eg i n g u n l awfu l arres t

, d et en ti o n, an d p ro s ecu t i o n,

an d t h e s et t i ng o f an ex ces s iv e cas h -o n l y b on d t h at Ham i lt o n w as u n ab l e t o p ay d u e

t o i n d i g en cy , i n v i o l at i on o f hi s ri g h t s u n d er t h e Fo u rt h, E i g h t h

, an d Fo u rt een th

Am en d m en t s

. Co u n t II al l eg ed v i o l at i o n s of t h e M i s s o uri Co n s t it u t i o n , a M i s s o u ri

s t at u te, an d M is s o u ri Su prem e Co u rt Ru l es . Co u n t III al l eg ed a ci v i l co ns p i racy to

arres t

, d et ai n , an d p ro s ecu t e Ham i lt o n i n v i o l at i on o f h i s s t at u t o ry an d co n s t i t u t i o n al

ri gh t s.

-2

-Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt 1 d i s m is s ed al l cl ai m s ag ai n s t Ju d g e Rag l an d an d Ov erb ey

b as ed o n ju d i ci al an d q u a s i

- ju d i ci al i m

m un i ty

. Th e co u rt d is m i s s ed t he s t at e l aw

cl ai m s ag ai n s t Hay t i an d In m an b ecau s e t he Ci t y h ad s o verei g n i m m u n i t y an d In m an ,

a p ri v at e act o r, co ul d n o t b e s u ed fo r v i o lat i o n s o f rel ev an t M i s s o u ri l aw. Fo l l o wi n g

d i s co v ery , t h e co u rt g ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m en t d i s m is si n g th e rem ai n i n g § 1 9 8 3

d am ag e c l a i m s , co n cl u d i n g (i ) Hay t i was n o t l i ab l e u n der M o n el l v

. Dep art m en t o f

So ci al Serv i ces , 4 3 6 U.S. 6 58 (1 9 7 8 ), becau s e th e al l eg ed u n co n s t i t u ti o n al b o n d

p ract i ce was n o t a fi n al p o l i cy d eci s i on ; an d (i i ) In m an was n o t l i ab l e u n d er § 1 9 8 3

b ecau s e Ham i lt o n fai l ed to p ro v e a “ m eet i n g o f t h e m i n d s ” wi t h s t at e act o rs

. In a

s ep arat e o rd er, t h e co u rt d i s m i s s ed t h e cl ai m s fo r i n ju n ct iv e an d d ecl arat o ry rel i ef as

m o ot b ecau s e M i s s o u ri h as am en d ed i t s l aws p ert ai n i n g to b ai l i n m u n i ci p al co u rt s

.

Ham i l t o n ap p eal s , ch al l en g i n g t h e d i s m is s al o f hi s § 1 9 83 d am ag es cl ai m s

ag ai n s t J u d g e Rag l an d, Ov erb ey , In m an , a n d t h e Ci t y o f Hay t i

. Rev i ewi n g t h e

d i s m i s s al an d s u m

m ary ju d g m en t o rd ers d e n o v o , we affi rm

. M ick v

. Rai n es , 8 8 3

F.3 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 7 8 -7 9 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 8 ) (s t an d ard o f rev i ew).

I

.

Ham i l t o n’ s co m

p l ai n t al l eg ed t h at J u d ge Rag lan d i s l i ab l e i n d am ag es fo r h i s

u n co ns t it u t i o n al act i o n s i n al l o wi n g Ov erb ey t o i s s u e arres t warran t s an d s et b o nd s

u s i n g h i s s i g n at u re st am p, an d i n s et t i n g a sch ed u l e req u i ri n g cas h

- o n l y b o nd s

wi t h o u t reg ard t o t h e arres t ed p ers o n ’ s ab i li t y t o pay

. On ap p eal

, Ham i l t o n arg u es t h e

d i s t ri ct co u rt erred i n d is m i ss in g t h es e cl ai m s b as ed o n J u d g e R a g l an d’ s ju d i ci al

i m m u ni t y

.

1 Th e Ho n orab l e Ro n ni e L

. W h i te, Un i t ed St at es D i s tri ct J u d g e fo r t h e Eas t ern Di s t ri ct o f M i s s o u ri

.

-3

-J u d i ci al i m m u n it y i s i m

m u n i t y fro m s u i t. It i s g ro u n d ed i n a “ g en eral p ri n ci p l e

o f t h e h i g h es t i m

p o rt an ce,” t h at “ a ju d i ci al offi cer, i n ex erci s i n g t he au t h o ri t y v es t ed

i n h i m , s h al l b e f

r e e t o act u p o n h i s o wn co n v i ct i on s , wi t h o ut ap p reh en s i o n o f

p ers o n al co n s eq u en ces t o h i m s el f.” M i rel es v

. W aco , 5 02 U.S. 9

, 1 0 (1 9 9 1 ), q u o t i n g

Brad l ey v

. Fi s h er, 8 0 U.S. 3 35

, 3 4 7 (1 8 7 1 ). T h e d o ct ri ne’ s bro ad p ro t ect i o n y i el d s

i n t wo c i rcu m st an ces : “ Fi rs t

, a ju d g e i s n ot i m m un e fro m l i ab i l i t y fo r n o n ju d i ci al

act i on s , i .e., act i o n s no t t ak en i n t he ju d g e’ s ju d i ci al cap aci t y

. Seco nd

, a j u d g e i s n ot

i m m u ne fo r act i o n s , t h o u g h ju d i ci al i n n at u re, t ak en i n t h e co m p l et e ab s en ce o f al l

ju ri s d i ct i o n .” M i rel es , 5 0 2 U.S. at 1 1 -1 2 (ci t at i on s o m i t t ed ). Al l eg at i o ns o f m al i ce

o r co rru pt i o n d o n ot defeat ju d i ci al i m m u ni t y

. S t u m

p v

. Sp ark m an , 4 3 5 U.S. 3 4 9,

3 5 5 -5 6 (1 9 7 8 ).

M u n i ci pal ju dg es i n Mi s s o u ri “ h av e o ri g i n al j u ri sd i ct i o n t o h ear an d d et erm i n e

al l vi o l at i o n s a g a i n s t t h e o rd i n an ces o f th e m u n ici p al i t y

. ” M o

. Rev

. St at

. § 4 7 9 .0 2 0 (1 ). Th ey are “ m un i ci p al ju dg es o f t h e ci rcu i t co u rt an d s h al l b e d i v i s i on s

o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u rt o f t h e ci rcu i t i n w hi ch th e m u n i ci p al i t y

. . . i s l o cat ed .” Id

. at

§ 4 7 9 .0 2 0 (5 ); see M o

. Co n st

. Art

. V, § 1 (“ Th e ju d i ci al p o wer o f t h e s t at e s h al l b e

v es t ed i n

. . . ci rcu i t co u rt s ”); Gran d a v

. Ci t y of St

. Lo u i s , 4 7 2 F.3 d 5 65

, 5 69 (8 t h Ci r.

2 0 0 7 ).

A. The Arres t W a rra nt. Th ere i s no q u es t i o n t h at M i s s ou ri l aw au t h o ri zed

M u n ici p al J ud ge Rag l an d t o i s s u e a r r e s t warran t s

. See M o

. Rev

. St at

. § 4 7 9 .1 0 0.

M i s s o u ri ’ s Su p rem e Co u rt Ru l es au t h o ri ze a m u n i ci p al ju dg e t o i s s u e a warra n t

“ [w] h en an i nfo rm at io n ch arg in g t he co m m i s s i o n o f an o rd i n an ce v io l at i o n an d a

s t at em en t o f p ro b ab l e cau s e are fi l ed ,” an d t h e co u rt fi n ds “ reas o n a b l e g r o u n d s

. . .

t o b el i ev e t hat t h e d efen d an t wi l l no t ap p ear.” R u l e 3 7

. 4 3 (2 0 0 3 ). Here, n o

i n fo rm at i o n h ad b een fi l ed wh en t he warran t t o arres t Ham i l t o n i s s u ed

. Th erefo re,

Ham i l to n arg u es , w i t ho u t ci t at i o n t o rel ev an t au t h o ri ty

, J ud g e Rag l an d ’ s i s s u an ce o f

t h e warran t was a n o n -ju d i ci al act t h at i n v ad ed t h e p ro s ecu t o r’ s ex cl u s i v e j u ri s d i ct i o n

t o co m m en ce a p ro s ecu t i o n

.

-4

-Th i s co n t en t io n i s wi t h ou t m eri t

. “ To i m p l em en t th e Fo u rt h Am en d m en t ’ s

p ro t ect i o n ag ai n s t u n fo u n d ed i n v as io n s o f li b ert y an d p r i v acy

. . . th e ex i s t en ce o f

p ro b ab l e cau s e [m

u s t] b e d eci d ed b y a n eu t ral an d d et ach ed m ag is t rat e wh en ev er

p o s s i b l e.” Gers t ei n v

. Pu g h

, 4 2 0 U.S. 1 0 3, 1 1 2 (1 9 7 5). Pri o r t o a s u s p ect ’ s arres t

, an

arres t warran t b as ed u p o n ju d i ci al rev i ew o f p ro b a b l e c a u s e i s p referab l e b u t n ot

req u i red

. Bu t wh en th e su s p ect i s i n cu s t o d y an d t h e q u es t i o n i s wh et h er hi s l i b ert y

s h o u ld b e res t rai n ed p en d i n g t ri al

, “ p ro b ab l e cau se fo r t h e is su an ce o f a n a r res t

warran t m

u s t b e d et erm i n ed b y [a n eu t ral an d d et ach ed m ag i s t rat e] i nd ep en d en t o f

p o l i ce an d p ro s ecu t io n .” Id

. at 1 1 8 ; s ee In re Harri s , 5 93 S.W .2 d 5 1 7

, 5 1 7 (M o

. b an c

1 9 7 9 ) (i n v al i d at i ng a Su p re m e Co urt Ru le t h at al l o wed ci rcu i t co u rt cl erk s t o i s s u e

warran t s “ u p on co m

p l ai n t m ad e b y t h e p ro s ecu t i n g at t orn ey ”).

Here

, w h e n t h e warran t i s s u ed

, Ham i l t o n was i n cu s to d y o n an o t h er ch arg e.

In m an ’ s co m

p lai n t wi t n es s ed b y Ov erb ey au t h o ri zed h i s p ro s ecu ti o n fo r v io l at i o n o f

t h e m u ni ci pal o rd i n an ces ci t ed

. See Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 4 79 .0 9 0

. W i t ho u t q u es t i o n,

t h en , i s s u an ce o f an arres t warran t au t h o ri zi n g h i s d et en t i o n p en d in g t r i a l was a ju d i ci al act wi t h i n J u d g e Rag l an d ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n as a m un i ci p al co u rt ju d g e. F o r ju d i ci al i m

m u n i t y t o ap p l y , “ th e rel ev an t i n q u i ry i s t h e ‘ n at u re’ an d ‘ fu n ct i on ’ o f t h e

act

, n o t t h e ‘ act i t s el f’ ”; w e m u s t “ l o o k t o t h e p a rt i cu l ar act ’ s rel at i o n t o a g en eral

fu n ct i o n n o rm al l y p erfo rm ed b y a ju d g e.” M i rel es , 5 0 2 U

. S

. at 13

. Gi ven J u d g e
Rag lan d ’ s st at u t o ry au t h o ri t y t o i s s u e warran t s , ev en i f t he warran t t o arres t Ham i l t o n

was i m pro p er u nd er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces , i t was an act i n “ ex ces s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n ” t h at

d i d no t d ep ri v e h im o f ju d i ci al i m m u n it y

. See St u m

p , 4 3 5 U.S. at 3 5 6-5 9 ; Du t y v.

Ci t y of Sp ri n g dal e, Ark

., 4 2 F.3 d 4 6 0

, 4 6 2 -6 3 (8 t h Ci r. 1 99 4 ); Co l em an v

. W at t

, 4 0

F.3 d 2 5 5 , 2 5 9 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 4 ). J u d i ci al i m m u n i t y ex t en d s ev en t o “ t h e co m m i s s i o n

o f g rav e p ro ced u ral erro rs .” St u m p , 4 3 5 U.S. at 3 5 9

.

I n t h i s cas e, th e warran t was n o t i s s u ed b y J u d g e Rag lan d b u t b y co u rt cl er k

Ov erb ey ex erci s i n g a u t h o ri t y d el eg at ed b y J u d ge Rag l an d, in cl u d i n g u s e o f h i s

s i gn at u re s t am

p

. Th i s d el eg at io n l i k e l y m ad e t h e warran t i n v al i d b ecau s e Ov erb ey

-5

-was n o t a n eu t ral an d d et ach ed m ag i s trat e wh o co u l d m ak e a co n s t i t u t io n al l y p ro p er

p ro b ab l e cau s e fi n d i n g u n d er Gers t ei n v

. Pu g h an d In re Harri s

. Bu t Ov erb ey

ex erci s ed au th ori t y d el eg at ed b y J u d g e Rag l an d t o p erfo rm t h e ju di ci al act o f i s s u i n g

an arr e s t w arran t

. In Led b et t er v

. Ci t y o f To p ek a, Kan

., a p ers o n arres t ed an d

d et ai ned fo r fai l i ng to ap p ear t o an s wer a m u n i ci pal v i o l at i o n b ro u g ht a § 1 9 8 3

d am ag e act i o n ag ai n s t t h e m u n ici p al ju dg e wh o d i d no t p ers o n al ly rev i ew o r s i g n t h e

arres t warran t

. 31 8 F.3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 6 (1 0 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ). A co u rt cl erk h ad i ss u ed t h e

warran t s t am

p ed wi t h t he ju dg e’ s s ig n at u re. Th e Ten t h Ci rcu i t affi rm ed di s m i s s al o f

t h i s c l a i m b ecau s e th e ju d g e was en t i t led t o ab s o l u t e i m m u n i t y

. “ [E] v en as s u m i n g

t h at h i s act s v i ol at ed K an s as law, J u d g e Ro ach d id no t act ‘ i n t h e cl ear ab s en ce o f al l

ju ri s d i ct i o n .’ ” Id

. at 1 1 8 9

, q u o t i n g St u m p , 4 3 5 U.S. at 3 5 6 ; a c c o rd Newt o n v.

Bu ck l ey , No

. 9 6 -4 2 0 2

, 1 99 7 W L 6 4 2 0 8 5, at *3 (1 0 t h Ci r. Oct

. 1 7, 1 9 9 7) (g ran t i n g ju d i ci al i m

m u n i t y fo r i n co rrect l y i s s u in g a b en ch warran t fo r fai lu re t o ap p ear). W e

ag ree wi t h t h i s reas o n in g an d t h erefo re co n cl u d e t h at J u d g e Rag lan d is en t i t l ed to

ab s o lu t e ju d i ci al i m

m u n it y fro m Ham i l t on ’ s arres t and de te ntion da m a g e c la im s ba sed

o n an i nv al i d warran t i s s u ed b y Ov erb ey

.

B. The Bo nd Schedul e. Ham i l to n al so arg u es t h at J u d g e Rag l an d i s l i ab l e in

d am ag es b ecau s e th e arre s t warran t req ui red h i m t o p o st a cas h-o n l y bo n d i n an

am ou n t es t ab l i s h ed b y J u dg e Rag l an d ’ s u n co n s ti t u t i o n al bo n d s ch ed u le. At t h e t i m e

o f H a m i l t o n ’ s arres t

, a p ers o n arres ted fo r v i o lat i n g a Ci t y o f Hay t i o rd i n an ce was

t ak en t o th e Hay t i Po li ce Dep art m en t fo r p ro ces si n g an d t h en , i f t h e offen s e req u i red

p o s t i n g a b o n d

, wo u l d g o t o jai l u n ti l t h e bo n d was p o st ed

. In Sep t em b er 20 1 0

, J u d g e
Rag lan d i s s u ed an Ord er “ au t h o r[i zi n g ] th e co u rt cl erk an d p o l ice offi cers t o co l l ect

t h e fo l lo wi n g fi n es an d co st b o n d s fo r o rd in an ce an d t raffi c v io l at i o n s.” Th e s ch ed u l e

l i st ed t h e am ou n t o f t h e fi n e o r b o n d fo r each o rd i n an ce up t o a m ax i m um o f $ 5 0 0.

Ev ery b on d h ad t o b e p ai d i n cas h , n o t b y a p ro fes s i o n al b o nd s m an

.

If t h e arres t ed p er s o n w i s h e d t o pl ead gu i l t y wi th ou t a co urt ap p earan ce, t h e

p o l i ce d ep art m en t o r co urt cl erk co l l ect ed t he am o u n t l is t ed o n t h e b o n d as t h e fi n e

-6

-an d co u rt co s t s , an d t h e cas e was c l o sed

. If h e d i d no t p l ead g ui l t y , h e co u l d av o id

fu rt her p ret ri al d et en t i on b y p ay i n g t h e am ou n t o f t he b o n d ; o th erwi se, h e was h el d

i n jai l u n t i l h i s i n i t i al ap p earan ce i n m u n i ci pal co u rt

. If h e p ai d t h e b on d an d fai l ed

t o ap p ear i n co u rt

, t h e b o n d s ch ed u l e s t at ed th at “ t h e fi ne wi l l b e d o u b led an d a

warran t wi l l b e i s su ed .” T yp i c a l ly

, Ov erb ey an d J u dg e Rag lan d t es t i fi ed

, t h e b o n d

p ay m en t was fo rfei t ed as s at i s fact i o n o f t he fi n e.

I n t h i s cas e, Ham i l t o n was d et ai n ed at t h e Co u n ty J ai l aft er hi s arres t o n a

d i fferen t ch arg e, w i t h th e Hay t i o rd i n an ce v i ol at i o n s ch arg ed i n In m an ’ s co m p l ai nt

p en di n g

. In t h i s rel at i v el y u n u s u al s it u a t i o n , J u dg e Rag l an d an d O v erb ey b o th

t es t i fi ed , Ov erb ey wo u l d ad v i s e J ud g e Rag l an d t hat t h e su s p ect was i n cu s to d y an d

J u d g e Rag l an d wo u l d d eci d e wh et h er t o i s s ue an arres t warran t to d et ai n t h e s u s p ect

u n t i l h is m

u n i ci p al co u rt ap p earan ce. Ho w ev er, n ei t h er recal l e d d i s cu s s i n g

Ham i l to n ’s d et en t io n at t he Co u n t y J ai l b efo re Ov erb ey i s s ued a warran t fo r

Ham i l to n ’ s arres t u s i n g J u d g e R a g l an d ’ s s i g n at u re s t am p

. It w as J u d g e Rag l an d ’ s

p ract i ce t o i n creas e t he fi ne t o t h e m ax i m u m $ 5 0 0 fo r a m

u ni ci p al o ffen s e i nv o l v i n g

b reach o f t h e p eace i n a p l ace o f b u s i n es s

. Th erefo re, i n i ss u i n g t he arres t warran t

, Ov erb ey s et Ham i l t o n ’ s b on d at $ 1,0 2 2 .5 0

, $ 5 00 fo r each o f t he t wo o ffen s es at t h e

Cl ev el an d Ap art m en t s p lu s co u rt co s t s.

Ham i l t o n al l eg es t h at J u d g e Rag l an d’ s “ es t ab l i sh ed p ract i ce” d en ied i n d i g en t

arres t ees t h ei r co n s ti tu t i o n a l ri g h t n o t t o be i m pri s o n ed pri o r t o t ri al s ol el y b ecau s e

t h ey can n o t affo rd t o p ay t h e b o n d t o s ecu re t h ei r rel eas e. W h en t h e § 1 9 8 3 p l ai n t i ff

i s s eek i n g i n

j u n ct i v e an d d ecl arat o ry rel i ef, t hi s can b e a s eri ou s i s s u e. See g en eral l y

OD o nn el l v

. Harri s Ct y ., 8 92 F.3 d 1 4 7 (5 t h Ci r. 2 01 8 ); Di x o n v

. Ci t y o f St

. Lo ui s , No

. 4: 1 9 -CV-0 1 1 2

, 2 0 19 W L 2 4 3 7 0 2 6 (E.D. M o

. J un e 11

, 20 1 9), ap p eal p en di n g , 8 th

Ci r. No s

. 1 9 -2 2 5 1 an d 1 9-2 25 4

. Ho wev er, t h es e cl ai m s h av e b een d is m i s s ed as m o ot

i n t h i s cas e; o n ly Ham i lt o n ’ s d am ag e cl ai m s are at is s u e. Th e d is t ri ct co u rt co n cl u d ed

t h at J u d g e Rag l an d i s en t i tl ed t o ab s o l u t e ju d i ci al i m m un i t y b ecau s e “ t h e i m

p o s i t i o n

-7

-o f co nd i t i o n s o f rel eas e [i n cl u d i n g b ai l bo n ds ] i s s u b ject t o t h e d i s cret i on o f t h e ju d g e,” ci t i n g Mo . Rev . St at . § 5 4 4

. 4 5 5 . W e ag ree.

M u n i ci pal ju dg es “ s h al l h av e p o wer an d ju ri s d ict i o n

. . . t o i ss u e p ro ces s fo r t h e

ap p reh en s i o n o f p ers on s ch arg ed wi t h cri m i nal offen ses , an d h o ld t h em t o b ai l .” M o.

Rev

. St at

. § 5 4 2 .0 20

. In J o h n Ch i s m Bai l Bo n ds

, In c. v. Pen n in gt o n, a § 1 9 8 3 act i o n

ag ai n s t Ark an sas ju d g es wh o “ an n o u n ced in a g en eral ad m i n i s t rat i v e o rd er t h at t h e

Co u n t y ’ s co u rt s w o ul d n o l o n g er accep t cas h o r pro fes s i o n al b o nd s , ” th e d i st ri ct co u rt

h el d t h at t h e j u d ges w ere en t it led t o ju di ci al i m m u ni t y in set t in g t he co u n t y’s b o n d

p o l i cy

. 41 1 F. Ap p ’ x 9 2 7

, 9 2 9 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 1 ), aff’ g 6 56 F. Su p p

. 2 d 9 2 9

, 9 3 4 (E.D.

Ark

. 2 0 0 9 ). On ap p eal , we h el d t h at t h e s h eri ff an d j ai l ad m i ni s t rat o r were en t i t l ed

t o qu as i -ju d i ci al im

m un i t y b eca u s e t h ey “ p erfo rm [ed ] cert ai n d el eg at ed ju d i ci al

p o wers ” i n req u iri n g a s h eri ff’ s b o nd aft er a co un t y ju d g e det erm i n ed th e am o u n t o f

t h e b o n d

. 4 1 1 F. Ap p ’ x at 9 3 0

. Th es e au t h ori t i es co n fi r m t h a t J ud g e Rag l an d ’ s

p ract i ce o f s et t in g a b o n d s ch ed u l e co n di t i o n i n g t h e p ret ri al rel eas e o f p ers on s

accu s ed o f m

u n i ci p al o rd i n an ce v i o l at io n s was a ju di ci al act wi t h i n h is j u ri s d i ct i o n

t o wh ich ju d i ci al im

m u n i t y at t ach es

.

I I

.

Ham i l t o n fur

t he r a r gue s t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt erred i n d i s m is s i n g h i s d am ag e cl ai m s

ag ai n s t co u rt cl erk Ov erb ey fo r i s s u i n g an i n v al i d arres t warran t t h a t i n cl u d ed an

u n co ns t it u t i o n al cas h b o n d req ui rem en t

. Th e co u rt co n cl u de d t ha t O v erb ey i s en t i t l ed

t o q u as i -ju d i ci al i m

m u n i ty

. Th i s d oct ri n e ex t en d s ju d i ci al im m u n i t y “ t o o ffi c i a l s

o t h er t h an ju d g es . . . b ecau se t h ei r ju d g m en t s are fu nct i on al l y co m p arab le t o t h o s e

o f ju d g es -- t hat i s, b ecau s e t hey

, t oo , ex erci s e a d is cret i o nary j u d gm en t as a p art o f

t h ei r fu n ct i o n .” A n to i n e v

. By ers & An d ers on , In c., 5 0 8 U. S

. 4 2 9

, 43 6 (1 9 9 3 )

(q u o tat i on s o m i t t ed ). Du e to t h e p res u m pt i o n “ t h a t q u a l i fi ed

, rat her t h an ab s o l u t e,

i m m u ni t y i s s u ffi ci en t t o pro tect g o vern m en t o ffi ci al s i n t he ex erci s e o f t h ei r d u ti es

. . . th e o ffi ci al seek i n g ab s o l u t e i m m u n i t y b e a rs t he b u rd en o f s h o wi n g t h at s u ch

-8

-i m

m u ni t y i s j u s t i fi ed fo r t h e fu n ct i o n i n q u es t i o n .” Ro b i n s o n v

. Freeze, 1 5 F.3 d 1 0 7,

1 0 8 ( 8 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 4 ) (q u o t at i on o m i t t ed ). Th e i s s u e t u rn s o n “ w h et h er t h e o ffi ci al

h i s t o ri cal l y en

jo y ed s u ch i m

m u n i t y at co m

m o n l aw p l u s a p ract i cal an al y s i s o f t h e

o ffi ci al ’ s fu n ct i o n s i n m o d ern t i m es

. ” Id

.

Fo r co u rt cl erk s , ab s ol u t e i m m u n i t y h as b een ex t en d ed to act s t h a t are

d i s cret i o n ary , tak en at t h e di rect i o n o f a j u d ge, o r t ak en acco rd i n g t o co u rt ru l es

. See

An t oi n e, 5 08 U.S. at 4 3 6 ; Ro b i n s o n , 1 5 F.3 d at 1 09

. Here, ev en as s u m i n g t h at J u d g e
Rag lan d d i d n o t d i rect Ov erb ey t o i s s u e t h e warran t t o arres t Ha m i l t o n , i t i s

u n d i s p u t ed t h at J u d g e Rag l an d au t h o ri zed Ov erb ey t o u s e h er d is cret i o n t o i s s u e an d

s et warran t s wi t h b on d co n di t i o n s

. In s i m i l ar si t u at i o ns , we h av e e x t en d ed q u as i

ju d i ci al i m

m u n i t y to co u rt cl erk s

. See Bo y er v. Ct y

. o f W as h i n g t o n , 9 71 F. 2 d 1 0 0,

1 0 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 9 2 ) (cl erk en t i t l ed t o q u as i-ju d i ci al i m m u n i t y fo r s i gn i ng an d i s s u i n g

an i n val id arres t warran t

, reg ard l es s o f wh et h er ju d g e i n s t ru ct ed her t o d o s o , b ecau s e

t h e act s w ere “ i n teg ral p art s o f t h e cri m i n al ju d i ci al p ro ces s”), cert

. d en i ed

. s u b n o m

. Bo y er v

. DeCl ue, 50 8 U.S. 9 7 4 (1 9 9 3 ); Ro g ers v

. Bru n t rag er, 8 4 1 F.2 d 8 5 3

, 8 5 6 (8 th

Ci r. 1 9 88 ) (cl erk en t it l ed t o q u as i -ju d i ci al i m m u n i t y fo r i s s u in g an arres t warran t at

t h e d i rect i o n o f a ju d g e); co m p are Gei t z v

. Ov eral l

, 6 2 F. Ap p ’ x 7 4 4

, 74 6 (8 t h Ci r.

2 0 0 3 ) (g ran t o f i m

m u n i t y r e v e r s ed wh ere cl erk s ’ act s were m i n is t eri al

, n ot

d i s cret i o n ary , an d n o t p urs u an t t o co u rt ru l es o r i n st ru ct i o n s).

Ha m i l t o n arg u es t h at Ov erb ey i s n o t en t i t led t o q u as i-ju d i ci al i m m u n i t y

b ecau s e b o t h s h e an d J u d g e Rag la n d l ack ed au t ho ri t y to is s u e a warran t u n d er t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces

. We reject ed t h at arg um en t i n Mart i n v

. H en d ren b ecau s e “ q u as i

ju d i ci al i m

m u n i t y wo u ld affo rd o n l y i ll u so ry p ro t ect i o n i f i t were l o s t t h e m o m en t an

o ffi cer act ed im

p ro p erl y .” 1 2 7 F.3 d 7 2 0

, 7 2 2 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 7 ). In s tead

, we ap p l i ed t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s t es t fo r d et erm i n i n g t h e p aram et ers o f ju d i ci al i m m u n i t y, w h i ch

em ph as i zes “ t h e n at u re o f t h e fu n ct i o n b ei n g p erfo rm ed

, n o t t h e p art i cu l ar act i t s el f.”

Id

., ci t i n g M i rel es , 5 0 2 U.S. at 1 2 -1 3

. A p p ly i n g t h a t t e s t h ere, th e d i st ri ct co u rt

-9

-co rrect ly co ncl u d ed t h at Ov erb ey i s en t i t l ed t o q u a s i -ju d ici al i m m u ni t y fo r h er

ch al l en g ed act io n s

.

II I

.

Ham i l t o n fu rt h er ap p eal s t h e d i s m i s s al o f h i s § 1 9 8 3 d am ag e cl ai m ag ai n s t t h e

Ci t y o f Hay ti b ecau s e Ju d ge Rag l an d’ s “ u n co n s t i t u t i o n al b o n d pract ice i s fai rl y

at t ri b u t ab l e t o t h e Ci t y o f Hay t i .” He arg ues t h at bo n d p ract i ces ad o p t ed b y J u d g e
Rag lan d

, an el ect ed ci t y o ffi ci al

, v io l at ed t h e Ei g h t h an d Fo u rt een t h A m en d m en t s

b ecau s e i n d i g en t d efen d an t s “ recei v ed jai l s en ten ces s i m pl y b ecau s e o f t h ei r l ack o f

fi nan ci al res o u rces an d i nab i l i t y t o p ay .” Th e d i s t ri ct co urt d i s m is sed t h i s cl ai m

b ecau s e J u d g e Rag l an d ’ s deci s i o n t o i m p o s e a cas h -o n l y b o n d as a co n d i t i o n o f

Ham i l to n ’ s p ret ri al rel eas e was a ju d i ci al d eci s i o n s u b ject t o rev iew by a h i g h er co u rt

,

s ee M o . Su p . Ct . Ru l e 3 3 .0 9 , n o t a p o l i cy d eci si on o f t h e Ci t y

.

In M o n el l

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt hel d t hat a m u n i ci p al i t y m ay n o t be h el d l i ab l e

u n d er § 1 9 8 3 fo r t h e co n st i t ut i o n al vi o l at i o n s o f i t s em pl oy ees o n a t h e o r y o f

r es p o n d ea t s u p er i o r , b u t m ay b e l i ab l e if “ t h e act i o n t hat is al l eg ed t o b e

u n co ns t it u t i o n al i m

p l em en t s or ex ecu t es a po l i cy s tat em en t

, o rd i nan ce, reg u l at i o n , o r

d eci s i o n offi ci al l y ad o p ted an d p ro m u l g at ed b y th at [m

u n i ci p al it y ’ s ] o ffi cers .” 4 3 6

U.S. at 6 9 0

. M u n ici p al l i ab il i t y “ m ay b e i m p o s ed fo r a s in gl e d eci s i o n b y m u n i ci p al

p o l i cy m ak ers ” wh o p o s s es s “ fi n al au t h o ri t y to es t ab li sh m unic ipal p o l i cy wi t h res p ect

t o t h e act i o n o rd ered

. ” Pem b au r v

. Ci t y o f Ci n ci n n at i

, 4 75 U.S. 46 9

, 4 8 0-8 1 (1 9 8 6 )

(p l u ral i t y o p in io n ).

Un d er M i s s o u ri l aw, m

u n i ci p al co urt s are d i v i s i o n s o f ci rcu i t co urt s t h at are

s t at e en t i t i es

. M o

. Co ns t

. Art

. V, § 1 ; M o. Rev

. St at

. § 4 7 9

. 0 2 0 ( 5 )

. I f a m u n i ci p al

co u rt ju d g e s et s an “ ex ces s i v e” co n d i t i o n fo r rel eas e, th e p ers o n accu sed m ay fi l e an

ap p li cat io n i n t h e c i rcu i t co u rt

, wh i ch can “ m ak e an o rd er s et ti ng o r m o d i fy i n g

co n di t i o n s fo r t h e rel eas e.” Mo

. Su p

. Ct

. Ru l e 3 7 .2 2

. J ud g e Rag lan d ’ s ju d i ci al o rd er

-1 0

-e s t ab l i s h in g a b o n d s ch ed u l e was n o t a Ci t y o f Hay t i p o l i cy

. See W o o ds v

. Ci t y o f

M i ch i g an Ci t y , In d

. , 9 40 F.2 d 2 7 5, 2 79 (7 t h Ci r. 19 9 1 ) (m u ni ci p al ju d g es i n s et t i n g

a b o n d s ch ed u le were “

j u d ici al offi cers of t h e St at e j u d i c i a l sy s t em ,” n o t fi n al

m u ni ci p al p o l i cy m ak e r s ). An d t h e s et t in g o f H am il to n ’ s b o n d i n h is arres t warran t

was a ju d i ci al act s u b

ject to rev i ew o r rev ers al b y h i g h er s t at e co u rt s

. Th erefo re, we

ag ree wi t h t h e d is t ri ct co u rt t h at n ei t h er t h e ad o p t i o n o f t h e b o n d s c h e d u l e n o r t h e

s et t i n g o f Ham il t o n ’ s bo n d was a fi n al d ec i si o n b y a m u n i ci p al po l i cy m ak er

es t ab l i s h in g m

u n i ci p al p o l i cy wi t h res p ect t o t h e act i o n o rd ered

. See G ran d a, 4 7 2

F.3 d at 5 6 9 (m

un i ci p al ju dg e det en t i on o rd er was n o t a fi n al p o l i cy deci s i on creat i n g
§ 1 9 8 3 m u n i ci p a l l i ab i l it y ); acco rd K i n g v

. Ci ty o f Cres t wo o d, M i s s o u ri

, 89 9 F.3 d

6 4 3 , 6 4 9 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 8 ).

Ha m i l t o n arg u es t hat J u d g e Rag l an d ’ s u n co ns t i t u ti o n al b o nd p ract i ce i s

at t ri b u t ab l e t o t h e Ci ty

b ecau s e i t was “ ad op t ed ” b y Hay t i ’ s ch i ef o f p o l i ce, l i k e t h e

m u ni ci p al ju d g e’ s i m

p o un d m e n t o rd er th at l ed to ex ces s i v e d el ay i n ret u rn i n g t h e
§ 1 9 8 3 p l ai n t i ff’ s veh i cl e i n Co l em an , 40 F.3 d at 2 6 2. Bu t o ur d eci s i o n i n Co l em an

s i m p l y rev ers ed t h e d i s m i s s al o f a p ro ced u ral d u e p ro ces s cl ai m an d rem an d ed fo r t h e

d ev el o p m en t o f “ key i s s u es ,” i n cl u d i n g “ t h e ro l e o f m u n i ci p al o ffi c i a l s i n ad o p t i n g

J u d g e W at t’ s o rd er as o ffi ci al p o l i cy .” Id

. Here, Ham i lt o n p res en ted no ev i d en ce

s h o wi n g h o w t h e “ ad o p t i on ” o f J u d g e Rag l an d’ s b o nd s ch ed u l e b y t he Ci t y o f Hay t i

p o l i ce cau s ed t he d ep ri v at i o n o f Ham i l t on ’ s ri gh t s as an i n d i gen t arr e s t e e

. “ A

m u ni ci p al i ty can n o t b e l i ab le fo r ju d i ci a l c o n d u ct i t l ack s t h e p o w er t o req u i re,

co n tro l

, o r rem ed y , ev en if t hat c o n d u c t p aral l el s o r ap pears en t an gl ed wi t h t h e

d es i res o f t h e m

u n i ci pal i t y .” Eg g ar v

. Ci t y o f Li v i n g s t o n , 4 0 F.3 d 3 1 2

, 3 16 (9 t h Ci r.

1 9 9 4 ), cert

. d en i ed , 5 1 5 U.S. 1 13 6 (1 9 9 5 ).

Ham i l t o n fu rt h er arg u es t h at

, ev en i f J u d g e Rag l an d ’ s b o n d p r a c t i ce was n ot

an o ffi ci al p o l i c y, it was an u nco n s t i t u t i o n al m u n i ci pal cu s t o m “ so p erm an en t an d

wel l set t l ed as t o co n s t i t u t e a ‘ cu s t o m o r u s ag e’ wi t h t h e fo rce o f l aw.” M o n el l

, 4 3 6

U.S. at 6 9 1

. To prev ai l o n t h i s t h eo ry , h e m u s t d em o n st rat e (1 ) “ [t ] h e ex i st en ce o f a

-1 1

-co n ti n u i n g , wi d es p read

, p ers i s t e n t p at t ern o f u n co n st i tu t i o n al m i s co nd u ct b y t h e

g o v ern m en t al en t i t y ’ s em p l o y ees ”; (2 ) “ [ d ]e l i b erat e in d ifferen ce t o o r t aci t

au t h o ri zat i o n o f s u ch co n d uct b y t h e g o v ern m en t al en t i ty ’ s p o li cy m ak in g o ffi ci al s

aft er no t i ce t o t h e o ffi ci al s o f t h at m i s co n d u ct ; ” an d (3 ) “ p ro o f t hat t h e cu s t o m was

t h e m ov i n g fo rce b eh i n d th e co n s t it u t i o nal v io lat i on .” M et tl er v. W h i t l ed g e, 16 5 F.3 d

1 1 9 7

, 1 2 0 4 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ) (q u o t at io n o m i t t ed ). “ [O] n l y ‘ d e l i b e r a t e’ act i o n b y a

m u ni ci p al i ty can m eet t h e ‘ m ov i n g fo rce’ req u i r em en t .” Id

., ci ti ng Bd

. o f Ct y

. Co m m ’ rs v

. Bro wn , 5 2 0 U.S. 3 9 7

, 4 0 0 (1 99 7 ). Ap pl y in g t h i s s t a n d a r d

, ev en i f we

co n si d ered J u dg e Rag l an d ’ s j u d i ci al b o nd p ract i ce t o b e p art o f m u n i ci p al cu s t o m o r

u s ag e, g i v en H am il t o n ’ s ri g h t t o ch al l en g e h i s co n di t i o n s o f rel eas e, w e wo u l d affi rm

t h e d i s m is s al o f th e m

u n i ci p al l i ab i l i t y cl ai m b ecau s e t h ere i s n o ev i d en ce t h at J u d g e
Rag lan d

, Ov erb ey , o r an y Ci t y em p l o y ee s et t h e cas h -o n ly bo n d co n d it i o n wi th

d el i b erat e i n d i fferen ce t o Ham i l t o n ’ s ri g h ts as an i nd i g en t arres t ee.

I V.

Fi n al l y , Ham i l t o n arg u es t h e d i st ri ct co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t

o n h is § 1 9 83 cl ai m t h at In m an co ns p i red wi th t h e ot h er d efe n d a n t s t o d ep ri v e

Ham i l to n o f h i s fed eral co n s t i t u t io n al ri g h t s

. Al th o u g h a § 1 9 8 3 co n s pi racy cl ai m

req u i res p ro o f o f act i o n u n d er co l o r o f s t at e l aw, “ [i ] t is en ou g h t h at [a p ri v at e p art y ]

i s a wi ll fu l p art i ci pan t i n jo in t act i o n wi th t h e St at e or i t s ag en t s.” D en n i s v. Sp ark s , 4 4 9 U. S. 2 4

, 2 7 (1 9 8 0 ). To s u rv i v e s u m m ary ju d g m en t, a p lai n ti ff m u s t p o i n t to

s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce fo r a reas o n ab le ju ry t o fi nd t h at “ th ere was a m u t u al

u n d ers t an d i n g , or a m eet in g o f t h e m i n d s, b et ween t h e p ri vat e p a r t y an d t h e s t at e

act o r.” M ers h o n v

. Beas l ey , 9 9 4 F.2 d 4 4 9

, 4 5 1 (8 t h Ci r. 1 99 3 ), cert

. d en ied

, 5 1 0 U.S.

1 1 1 1 (1 9 9 4 ).

Ham i l t o n arg u es t hat t he req u i s i t e m eet i ng o f t h e m in d s can b e i n ferred fro m

t h e fact t h at In m an i n s t i g at ed hi s arres t, d efen d an t s s h are “ cl os e fam i ly

, ro m an t i c, an d

p ers o n al rel at i o n s h ip s , ” an d Ov erb ey em p l o y ed “ ex trem el y i rreg u l ar” p ro ced u res in

-1 2

-o p en in g t h e m un i ci p al co u rt cas e, m ak i n g t h e d eci s i o n t o arres t Ham i l t o n , an d s et t i n g

an en han ced cas h -o n l y

b o n d wi t h o u t i n v o l v in g t h e ci t y p ro s ecu t o r.

In m an ’ s cal l i n g th e p o l i ce an d fi l i n g a co m p l ai n t d o n o t es t ab l i s h a m eet i n g o f

t h e m i n d s

. “ [A] p ri v at e p art y ’ s m ere i n v o cat i o n o f s t at e leg al p ro ced u res d o es n ot

co n st i t u t e s t at e act i o n .” Y o un g b l o o d v

. Hy -Vee Fo o d St o res , In c., 2 6 6 F.3 d 8 5 1

, 8 5 5

(8 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ), cert

. d en ied

, 5 3 5 U.S. 1 0 1 7 (2 0 0 2); s ee M i l l er v. Co m p t o n, 1 2 2 F.3 d

1 0 9 4

, 1 0 97 -9 8 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 97 ). Ham i l t o n p res en t ed n o ev i d en ce t h at In m an p l ay ed

an y p art i n i s s u in g t h e arres t warran t, set t i n g t h e b o n d

, o r p r ev en t i ng Ham i l t o n ’ s

rel eas e fro m jai l b efo re h i s co urt ap p earan ce. W e ag ree wi th th e di s t ri ct co u r t t h at

In m an ’ s “ fam i l i al an d ro m an t i c” rel at io n sh i p s wi th Ov erb ey an d Offi cer In m an “ o n

t h ei r o wn , are n o t s u ffi ci en t t o p ro v e a ‘ m eet in g o f t h e m in ds ’ b y ei t h er d i rect o r

ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i den ce.” A s we h av e ex p l ai n ed, H a m ilt o n s i m p l y fai l ed to pro v e t h at

Ov erb ey t o o k “ ex t rem el y i rreg u l ar” act i on s as m u n i ci p al co u rt cl erk i n wi t n es s i n g

In m an ’ s co m

p lai n t an d i n i s s u i n g t h e arres t warran t an d s et t i ng Ham i lt o n’ s b o n d.

Th i s part i cu lar w arran t m a y h a v e b een in fi rm becau s e J u d g e Rag l an d’ s p ers o n al

i n v o l v em en t was co n s t i t u t i o n al l y req u ired

, b u t i t i s u n d i s p u t ed t h at O v erb ey b el i ev ed

s h e was ex erci s i n g au t h o ri t y t h e ju d g e h ad d el eg at ed

.

Fo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s , t h e ju d g m en t o f t h e d is t ri ct co u rt i s affi rm ed

.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

-1 3

-