I N TH E UN I TED STATES COU RT OF APPEA LS F O R T H E F IF T H C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 11223

LA W RE N CE PAT RI CKD AV I S P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. T A R R A N T C O U N T YT E XA S ; S H A R E N W IL S O N , H o n o r a b le , in Indivi du alan d O f

f i ci alC ap aci t y; W AY N E SA L VA N T , H on orabl e, i n I n di vi du alan d O f f i ci alC ap aci t y; E L IZA B E T H B E R R Y , H on orabl e, i n I n di vi du alan d O f f i ci alC ap aci t y; M IK E T H O M A S , H on orabl e, i n I nd i v i d ua la nd Of f i c i a lCa p a c i t y ; M OLLEE W ESTFALL, Ho n o r a b l e , i n I n d i v i d u a la n d Of f i c i a lC a p a c i t y ; E VE RE T T Y OUNG, Ho n o r a b l e , i n I n d i v i d u a la n d O f f i c i a lC a p a c i t y ; S C OT T WI S C H, Ho n o r a b l e , i n I n d i v i d u a la n d Of f i c i a lC a p a c i t y ; GE OR GE G A LL A G H E R , H onor abl e, i n I ndi vi dualand O f f i c i alC apac i t y; R O B E R T KG I LL , H onor abl e, i n I ndi vi dualand O f f i c i alC apac i t y; JA M E S W I LS O N , H onor abl e, i n I ndi vi dualand O f f i c i alC apac i t y; JE FF W A LK E R , H onor abl e, i n I ndi vi dualand O f f i c i alC apac i t y D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , SO U T H W IC K , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . F O R T U N A T O P
. B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: A pp el l antLawre nc e Pat r i c k Davi s , a c r i m i nalde fe ns e a t t o r ne y w ho pr ac t i c e s pr i m ar i l y i n Tar r antCount y, Te xa s , f i l e d t hi s sui tbe c aus e t he Tar r ant C ou n t y cri m i n aldi st ri ctj u dg es den i ed hi s ap pl i cat i on t o be i n cl u ded on t h e l i st United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 8, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 11223

2 of at t or neys el i gibl e f

orc our tappoi nt m enti n fel ony c as es i n T ar r ant C ount y, k n o w n a s “t h e w h ee l

. ” D a vis su ed the distri ct j u d ge s h ea ri n g felon y ca ses in Tarr ant C ount y and t he pre si di ng j udge o f t he E i ght h Judi c i alA dm i ni st r at i ve R egi on ( c ol l ec t i vel y, t he “ def endant j udges ” ) i n bot h t hei ri ndi vi dualand of f i c i al
c ap ac i t i e s , a nd Ta r r antCounty, u n de r4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 98 3, a s s e r t i ng t hatt he est abli shm en tan d i m pl em en t ati on of the cou n t y pol i cy forthe ap poi n t m en tof
coun selt o represent i n di gen tdefen da n t s and t h e den i alof hi s app l i cat i on violated the du e p roce ss a n d eq u a lpr otection cl a u ses o f th e F ou rteen th A m en d m en t an d the du e p roce ss clau se o f th e F i ft h A m en d m en t. The di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d t he m o t i o ns t o di sm i s s f i l e d b y t he de fe nda nt j u dg es and T arran tC ou n t y on t h e groun ds: ( 1) t h at t h e defenda n tj u dg es w ere im m u n e fr o m s u it in th e irin d iv id u a l ca p a c itie s b e c a u se t h e yw e r e a c tin gin th e ir j ud i c i a lc a p a c i t i e s wh e n t h e ye s t a b l i s h e d a n d i m p l e m e n t e d t h e a p p o i n t m e nt pol i cy an d d en i ed D avis ’ s app l i cat i on ; ( 2) t h a t t h e d efen da n tj u dg es w ere i m m u n e f

rom su i t i n th eir off

i ci a l ca p a ci ti es un d er t h e E l ev e n th A m en d m en t; and( 3) t hatTar r antCount y w as no tl i ab l e a s a m at t e ro f l aw be c aus e t he de fe nda ntj udg e s w e r e a c t i ng o n b e hal f o f the s t at e o f

Te xa s , no tTar r ant C ount y. The di st r i c tc our tdi d notaddr es s t he al t er nat i ve gr ounds f ordi sm i ss al
r a i s e d i n t h e m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s , i n c l u d i n g t h a t Da v i s h a d fa i l e d t o a l l e ge a ny vi o l at i o n o f

a pr o t e c t e d p r o pe r t y r i ghto rl ibe r t y i nt e r e s ta nd t hatt he de fe nda nt ju d g e s w e r e e n tit le d to q u a lifie d a n d le g is la tiv e im m u n ity

. D avis a p p e al ed, argu i n g: ( 1) t h at t h e defen da n tj u dg es’act s w ere not j u di ci ali n na t u re; ( 2) t h at t h e E l even t h A m en dm en t di d not bar h i s requ estf or pr o spect i ve de c l ar at o r y r e l i e f; a nd ( 3) t hatTar r antCount y w as l i ab l e f o rt he def endant j udges ’ ac t i ons bec ause t he Texas Fai r D ef ens e Act , pas se d i n 2001,
m akes t he def

endant j udges c ount y po l i c ym aker s. An am i c us br i ef w as s u b m itted b y th e T e x a s F a ir D e fen se P rojec t (“T F D P ”) in su p p o rt of D a v is ’s pos i t i o n t ha tt he d e fe nd a ntj ud g e s a c t e d a s c o un t yp o l i c y m a ke r s a nd t hatN o. 07- 11223

3 T a rra n t C ou n ty m a y be h eld l i a b l e f or t h e defen d a n t j u d ge s’ a cti on s in
e s ta b lis h in ga n d im p le m e n tin gth e a p p o in tm e n t p o lic y . Fo rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we AF FI RM
. I . St andard of

R evi ew A di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g r anto f a m o t i o n t o di s m i s s i s r e vi e w e d d e no vo , us i ng th e s a m e s ta n d a r d a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Fran k v. D el t a A i rl i n es, I n c. , 314 F
. 3 d 19 5 , 19 7 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 2 ). In ru l i n g o n a m oti on to dism i ss, a co u rt “ a ccep ts al l we l l

- p l e a d e d fa c t s a s t r u e , v i e wi n g t h e m i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fa v o r a b l e t o t he p l a i n ti ff

. ” R elia b le Co n su lta n ts, In c. v. E a rle , 5 1 7 F .3d 7 3 8 , 7 4 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ).

“ To sur vi ve a R ul e 1 2(b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di sm i ss , t he pl ai nt i f f m ustpl ead e nough facts to state a cl a i m to rel i ef t h a t i s p l a u sibl e on i ts fa ce.” I d. ( i nt er nal q u o ta tion s o m itted ). I I . Bac kgr ound A . D a v is’ s A p p li c a tion for F e lon y C o u rt A p p o in tm e n ts O n J une 1 , 2 00 5, D av i s s ubm i t t e d a n app l i cat i o n t o b e i nc l ude d o n t he T arran tC ou n t y fel on y court ap poi n t m en tw h eel

. H i s ap pl i cat i on w as den i ed on A u gu s t1 , 2 00 5. On O c t o be r2 8, 2 00 5, D av i s ’ s a t t o r ne y s e nta l e t t e rt o t he Tarr ant C ount y c r i m i naldi st r i c tj udges as ki ng f oran expl anat i on of

the deni al and re ques t i ng a h ear i ng. Th e j udges di d n otres pond to the l et t er . O n June 2, 20 06 , D av i s s e n t a n ot h e rl e t t e rt o t he j udg e s a s ki ng f o ra n e xp l ana t i o n o f t he de ni alo f

hi s a ppl i c at i o n a nd r e que s t i ng a he ar i ng. The j udg e s di d notr e s po nd t o t h e sec on d l et t er. D av i s a l l e ge s t hatt he j udg e s de ni e d hi s ap pl i c at i o n t o be i nc l ude d o n t he fel on y c our tappoi nt m entw heelbe c ause he di d nothave goo d per so nal rel ati on shi ps w i t h t h e j u dg es, he w as not par t o f the j u dg es’“ good ol ’boys”
ne t w o r k, a nd t he j u dg es w e r e t r yi ng t o e xc l ude q ual i f i e d a t t o r ne ys f

r o m t he
w h e e l in o r d e rto in c r e a s e th e c o n v ic t io n r a t e a n d c le a rth e c r im in a l c o u r t ’s d ock et.N o. 07- 11223

4 B . T h e T exa s Fa i r D ef en se A ct In 200 1, t h e T exas F ai r D e fen se A ct(t h e “A ct” ) w as passed. Th e A ct sub st an t i al l y revi sed A rt i cl e 26. 04 of t h e T e x as C ode of C ri m i n alP rocedure,
w h i ch govern s t h e procedu res f or the ap poi n t m en tof coun sel

. P ri or t o Jan u ary 1, 2 00 2, w he n t he Ac t w e nti nt o e f fe c t , Ar t i c l e 2 6. 04 pr o vi de d t hatde c i s i o ns
r e ga r di ng t he ap po i nt m e nto f c o uns e lw o ul d b e m ad e b y i ndivi dua lj udg e s o n a c as e - by

- c as e b as i s . Ar t i c l e 2 6. 04 s t at e d: C ou rtshallapp oi n tcoun sel ( a) W h en ever t h e court determ i n es t h at a defen da n tcharged w it h a fe lo n yo ra m is d e m e a n o rp u n is h a b le b yim p r is o n m e n t is in d ige n t or th a t t h e in te re sts o f ju stic e r e q u ire re p re se n ta tion of a defendan t i n a c r i m i nal pr o c e e di ng, t he c o ur t s hal l ap po i nt o ne or m o r e p r a c tic in ga tt o r n e y s to d e fe n d h im

. . . . T e x . C o d e C rim

. P ro . A n n . a rt. 2 6 .04 (V e rn o n 1 9 8 9 ). T h e 2 0 0 1 a me n d me n te s t a b l i s h e d a mu c h mo r e d e t a i l e dp r o c e d u r a lr e g i me f or t h e app oi n t m en tof coun seli n cr i m i n alcases t h at r equ i res j u dg es i n each
c o unt y t o e s t ab l i s h s t and ar di z e d c o unt ywi de pr o c e dur e s . The 20 01 a m e ndm e nt p ro v id e s th a t th e co u n ty w id e p o li cy m a yb e b a se d on th e es ta b li sh m e n t of a publ i c appoi nt m entl i st , t he appoi nt m entof a publ i c def

ender , t he c r eat i on o f an

“ al t e r nat e pr o gr am , ” o rs i m pl y al l o w i ng j udg e s t o a ppo i nta t t o r ne ys f r o m a ny c ount y i n t he c our t ’ s adm i ni st r at i ve j udi c i alr egi on. The te xtof A r t i c l e 2 6. 04 fol l ow i n g th e 2 0 0 1 am en d m en t pro vid es in re l ev a n t pa rt: P rocedures f

or A pp oi n t i n g C ou n sel ( a ) Th e j u d g e s o f t h e c o u n t y c o u r t s , s t a t u t o r y c o u n t y c o u r t s , a nd di st ri ctcourt s t ryi n g cri m i n al cases i n each coun t y, by l ocalrul e, sh a l lad op t an d pu b l i sh w ri tten cou n tyw i d e p roce d u res for tim e ly andfai r l y ap po i nt i ng c o uns e lf o ra n i ndi ge ntde fe nda nti n t he c ount y ar r es t ed f

ororc harge d w i th a m i sde m eanorpuni shabl e b y confi n em en tor a fel on y. . . . Acourtshallapp oi n tan att orney fr om a pub l i c a ppo i nt m e ntl i s tus i ng a s ys t e m o f r o t at i o n, unl e s s t he c o ur ta ppo i nt s a n a t t o r ne y unde r[ t ho s e s ubs e c t i o ns a ddr e s s i ng t he appoi nt m e nto f

t he pub l i c de fe nde r , t he c r e at i o n o f a c o unt ywi deN o. 07- 11223

5 al t erna t i ve progra m , or a j u dg e’ s abi l i t y t o app oi n ta coun self rom an y coun t y i n t h e court ’ s adm i n i st rat i ve j u di ci alregi on ]
. Th e court s hal la ppo i nta t t o r ne ys f r o m a m o ng t he ne xtf i ve na m e s on t he appoi nt m entl i sti n t he or der i n w hi c h t he at t or neys ' nam es appear o n t he l i s t , unl e s s t he c o ur tm ak e s a f i ndi ng o f

g o o d c aus e o n t he r e c o r d fo ra p p o in tin ga n a t t o r n e yo u t o f o r d e r . A n a tt o r n e yw h o is n otapp oi n t ed i n t h e order i n w h i ch t h e att orney' s n am e ap pea rs on th e li st sh a l lrem a i n n ex t i n ord er on the l i st. T ex . C od e C ri m . P ro. A n n . art. 26
. 0 4 (V e rn on 20 0 9 ). A rti cl e 2 6
. 0 4 sets ou t a
n u m ber of

requi rem en t s f

or t h e coun t yw i de p rocedures, such a s th at t h ey aut ho r i z e o n l y t h e j u d g e s o f t h e c o u n t y c o u r t s , s t a t u t o r y c o u n t y c o u r t s , a nd d i stri ct cou rts tryi n g crim i n a lcas es in th e c o u n ty , or th e j u d ge s’de sign ee , to appoin t co u n se lf

ori ndi gentdef

endant s i n t he c ount y; t hat t hey e nsur e t hat ap poi n t m en t s are al l ocat ed am on g qu al i f i ed at t orneys i n a m an n er t h at i s fai r, neut r al , and nondi sc r i m i nat or y; and t hat t he j udges s pec i f y t he o bj ec t i ve qua l i f i c at i o ns ne c e s s ar y f

o ra n a t t o r ne y t o b e i nc l u d e do n t h e p u bl i c a ppo i nt m e nt lis t. I d. C . Th e Tarr ant C oun t y Ap poi nt m ent P ol i ci es I n o r de rt o com pl y w i t h t he Te xa s Fai rD e fe ns e Ac t , t he j udg e s o f t he Tar r antC o unt y c r i m i naldi s t r i c tco ur t s publ i s he d a s e tof g ui de l i ne s f

o rf e l o ny c o ur t ap po i nt m e nt s . The gui de l i ne s i n e f fe c t att he t i m e D av i s a ppl i e d f o rfe l o ny cou rt ap p oin tm en ts i n T a rra n t C ou n ty i n Ju n e 2 0 0 5 stated tha t ap p oin tm en ts
w ere to be m ad e fr om a rotat i n g l i stof t h e na m es of el i gi bl e att orneys, arrang ed
ac c o r di ng t o t he c hr o n ol ogi cal dat e o f r e c e i pto f

a n a ppr o ve d a ppl i c at i o n, a nd t hata n a t t o r ne y w as t o r e c e i ve o ne de fe nda ntperro t at i o n on t he a ppo i nt m e nt l i s t
. The g ui de l i ne s s e t o utm and at o r y ge ne r alq ual i f i c at i o ns f

o ra t t o r ne ys w ho
s o u g h t cr im in a l c o u r t a p p o in tm e n ts
. T h e s e q u a lific a tio n s a p p e a rto b e m o s tlyN o. 07- 11223

Th e general qualifications also include d h aving a functioning

fax machine and email 1 address and some means of re gularly receivingphonemessages, filing a sworn applicationfor app ointm entsapp rovedb yth e di strictj u dgeswithth e C oordin ato r of Attorn eyApp ointm ents , notifyingth e C oordinator of anym at t er thatwoul d disqualifyth e attorn eyfrom receiving appointments an d filing anannu alcompliance update, and appearin g in cases to whichth e attorneyh as b eenapp ointed and represe ntin g indi ge ntc li en ts th at the attorneyh as b een appointed to re p r es ent
. Th e gu id el in es al s o i m p os edmi ni m umqua lif ic at io ns fo r appointments in specific categorie s of case s , s uc h as “State Jail Felony” and “Seco nd and Third Degre e Felonyan d Motion t o Re vo k e or Adju dicate C ommunity Supervi sion .” Th ese qualification s related to th e number o f c as es in th e relevantcategoryth at the attorneyh ad b eeninvolved with, the numb er of years the attorneyh ad bee n lice nsed to practice, and the attorney’s b oard certif ic ation s an d C L Etrainin g . 6 o bj e c t i ve , e . g. , b e i ng a m e m be ri n go o d s t and i ng o f t he st at e barw ho m ai nt ai ns a pr i nci palof

f i c e i n T ar r ant C ount y. 1 O n A pri l24, 2 006 , t h e T arran tC ou n t y cri m i n aldi st ri ctcourtj u dg es i s s ue d t he T ar r antC o unt y D i s t r i c tC o ur t s F e l o ny Cour t
- Appo i nt m e ntPl an ( t he

“ P l an ” ) , w h i ch sup erseded the exi st i n g gu i del i n es f or f el on y court ap poi n t m en t s. Th e Pl an w as s i gned by Judges Share n W i l so n, W ayne Sal vant , E l i zabe t h B er r y, M i ke Th om as , B ob G i l l , E ver et tYoun g, Jam es W i l so n, Sco t tW i sc h, and G eo r ge G a l l a gh er, a n d w a s ap p rov ed b y Je ff W a l k er, th e P resid i n g Ju d ge of th e E i gh th A d m in is tr a tiv e J u d ic ia l R e g io n . T h e P la n p r o v id e s th a t a q u a lifie d a tt o r n e yw ill be a ppo i nt e d t o ea c h i ndi ge ntdef e nda ntbas e d on a r o t at i ng fe l o ny ap po i nt m e nt
w h eelconsi st i n g of

t h e na m es of

qu al i f i ed att orneys ap proved by a m aj ori t y of th e d is tr ic t ju d g e s h e a r in gc r im in a l c a s e s , a n d t h a t e a c h q u a lifie d a tt o r n e yw ill be appo i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n to n e i n d i g e n td e fe n d a n tp e rr o t a t i o n t h r o u g h t he
w h eel

. Th e P l an all o w s j u dg es ort h ei r desi gn ees t o devi ate f rom t h e rot ati on syst em an d ap poi n t an att orney w h o i s speci f i cal l y qu al i f

i ed u n der t h e P l an on a n a d h o c b a s i s u p o n a f i n d i n go f

g o o d c a u s e t o d e v i a t e f r o m t h e r o t a t i o n s y s t e m. T h e P l an, l i ke t he s uper se ded gui del i nes , i m pos es m andat or y ge ner al qual i f i c at i ons f

orat t or neys see ki ng appoi nt m ent s. The Pl an st at es : “Ac r i t i c al
r e vi e w o f

t he qual i t y o f

re pr e s e nt at i o n ac t ual l y pr o vi de d bya t t o r ne ys a ppl yi ng t o b e o n t he w he e l i s a fac t o r i n pr o vi di ng hi gh qua l i t y r e pr e s e nt at i o n t o i ndi ge ntN o. 07- 11223

Th e a dditio n al “obj ective”qu alification s als o inclu de : b ein gf a mili ar withT exa s l aw; 2 not having

be en sanction ed b y a c ourtfor failure to appearor for anytype of unprofessio nal or abusivecon duct; maintaining a listinginth e telephonedir ectory; promptlyrespo ndin g to communication s from the court; maintainingthe capacity to acce ss thecourt’s electronic filin g system; and promptlycont ac t in g indivi dual s who the attorneyh as b eenapp ointed to re pr es ent. 7 defenda n t s. I n add i t i on t o t h e obj ect i ve cri t eri a ou t l i n ed h erei n , t h e st atutes of t he St at e o f

Te xa s p rovi de fora s ubj e c t i ve r e vi e w o f t he q ual i f

i c at i o ns o f

t he
a tt o r n e y s a p p ly in gfo rin c lu s io n o n th e w h e e l. .

. . T h e e s t a b lis h m e n t o f th is
s ys t e m o f

q ual i f i c at i o ns c o nfe r s t o no a t t o r ne y a pr o pe r t y i nt e r e st i n r e c e i vi ng fel ony c our t
- appoi nt m ent s. ” The s pec i f i c qual i fi ca t i ons r equi r ed t o r ec eive a p p o in tm e n ts in ce r ta in ca te g o r ie s o f fe lo n y ca s e s a p p e a rto b e e s s e n tia lly i dent i c al t o t hos e i n t he super se ded gui del i nes , but t he Pl an i ncl udes addi t i onal “o b je c tiv e ” g e n e r a l q u a lific a tio n s to re c e iv e a p p o in tm e n ts , s u c h a s co n s is te n tly de m o ns t r at i ng c o m m i t m e ntt o p ro vi di ng e f fe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e o f c o uns e la nd qua l i t y r e pr e s e nt at i o n t o c r i m i nalde fe nda nt s ; c o ns i s t e nt l y de m o ns t r at i ng p rofession a l i sm , pr ofi ci en cy , an d reli a b i l i ty i n re p rese n ti n g crim i n a lde fen d a n ts andi n de al i ng w i t h t he co ur t s and op po s i ng c o uns e l ; a nd b e i ng o f s o und m i nd,
as w el las good m oralan d ethi calcharacter

. 2 I I I . St andi ng D avis chal l en ges both h i s rej ect i on u n der t h e T arran tC ou n t y gu i del i n es i n e f fe c ta tt he t i m e he a ppl i e d f o rf e l o ny c o ur ta ppo i nt m e nt s i n J une 2 00 5 and t he e s t ab l i s hm e nt and i m pl e m e nt at i o n o f t he 20 06 Pl an, w hi c h s upe r s e de d t he
ex i sti n g g u i d eli n es. T h e d efen d a n t jud ge s con ten d tha t D a vis l a ck s stan d i n g to bri n g a cl ai m b ased on the ad opti on of t h e 200 6 P l an becau se hi s app l i cat i on f or i n cl u si on on t h e T arran t C ou n t y fel on y court ap poi n t m en tw h eelw as subm i t t ed
a n d d e n ie d u n d e r t h e s u p e r s e d e d g u id e lin e s b e fo r e th e P la n w a s a d o p te d in 2 0 0 6 , a n d h e h a s fa ile d to file a n o th e ra p p lic a tio n .N o. 07- 11223

8 T h e d i stri ct c o u r t d id n ot ba se it s ru l i n g o n D a vis’ s l a ck of stan d i n g to
c hal l e nge t he ad o pt i o n o f t he Pl an, buts t and i ng i s a j ur i s di c t i o nalr e qui r e m e nt
a n d m a y b e r a is e d a t a n y tim e . Se e FW /PBS, I nc . v . D al l as , 493 U
. S. 215, 231 (19 9 0 ). In o rd er to s a ti sfy th e stan d i n g req u i rem en t of an “actu a lor i m m i n en t” i nj ur y, a pl ai nt i f

f g e ne r al l y m us ts ubm i tt o t he c h a l l e nge d p o l i c y be f o r e pur s ui ng a n a c tio n to d is p u te it. See , e . g. , Mo o se L o dg e No . 1 0 7 v . Ir v is , 407 U
. S. 163, 1 6 6

– 7 1 (1 9 7 2 ) (h o ld in gth a t p la in tiff w h o h a d n e v e r a p p lie d fo rm e m b e r s h ip la c k e ds ta n d in gto ch a lle n g e fr a te r n a l o r g a n iz a tio n ’ s d is c r im i n a t o r ym e m b e r s h ip p o lic ie s ); G ran t ex rel

. F am i l y E l d erc are v . G ilbert , 324 F
. 3d 383 , 388 ( 5th C i r. 200 3) (h ol di n g t h at pl ai n t i f f l acked st an di n g t o chal l en ge w ai ver pol i cy becau se h e fa ile d to a p p lyfo rw a iv e rs e r v ic e s ); Madse n v. B oi s e St at e Uni v. , 976 F. 2d 121 9, 122 1 ( 9th C i r. 1 9 9 2) ( “ [A ] pl ai n t i f f l acks st an di n g t o chal l en ge a rul e or pol i cy t o w h i ch he h as n ot sub m i t t ed hi m sel f by act u al l y ap pl yi n g f or t h e desi red ben ef i t
. ” )

. H ow ever, st ri ctadh erence to thi s generalrul e m ay be excu sed w h en a p o lic y ’ s fla t p r o h ib itio n w o u ld re n d e rs u b m is s io n fu tile

. LeC l e r cv. W e bb , 419 F. 3d 405, 413 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( c i t i ng E l l i son v. C o n n or , 15 3 F
. 3 d 24 7 , 25 5 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 )). D avis doe s n o t cl earl y art i cul ate hi s r espon se t o t h e defen da n tj u dg es’
s ta n d in ga r g u m e n t, b u t it a p p e a r s th a t h e s p e c u la te s t h a t h is a p p lic a tio n w o u ld h ave been rej ect ed i f he h ad reapp l i ed u n der t h e P l an d u e to h i s r ej ect i on un der t he s uper se ded gui del i nes . Su ch s pec ul at i on i s nots uf f i c i entt o s how t hat
a p p ly in gu n d e rth e P la n w o u ld h a v e b e e n fu tile

. Se e Uni t e d I nd us . , I nc . v. E i m co Proces s E qu i

p. Co. , 61 F. 3d 445 , 449 ( 5th C i r. 199 5) (h ol di n g t h at evi den ce o f f ut i l i t y w as i ns uf

f i c i e ntb e c aus e itam o unt e d t o no t hi ng m o r e t han a p e ss im istic b e li e f th a t it w a s n o t w o rth a tte m p tin gto c o m p e te for a p rojec t); P u ck et v . Ho t S

p rings S ch o o l D ist. No . 2 3 -2 , 526 F. 3d 1151, 1162 ( 8t h C i r . 2008) (h ol di n g t h at pl ai n t i f fs l acked st an di n g becau se “ t h ere w as no a ll e gati on or ev i d en ce th a t a req u est b y th e p l a i n ti ffs to r ein state b u sing o f B eth esd a stu d en tsN o. 07- 11223

9 a fte r§ 1 3 -2 9 -1 .2 b e c a m e e ffe c tiv e w o u ld h a v e b e e n fu tile ”); cf

. E l l i son v. Con n or , 153 F
. 3d 247 , 255 ( 5th C i r. 199 8) (h ol di n g t h at i tw ou l d h a v e been f u t i l e f or p la in tiffs to a p p lyfo rp e r m its b e c a u s e t h e yh a d b e e n s e n t a le tt e rs p e c ific a lly
s ta tin gt h a t th e p e r m its w o u ld b e d e n ie d ); Moore v. U
. S

. D ep’ tof Agri c. , 993 F. 2d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 2

– 1 2 2 4 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 3 ) (ho l d i n g th a t w h i te fa rm ers d i d n ot h a ve to
com pl et e an app l i cat i on to p a rti ci pa t e i n a F arm ers H om e A dm i n i st rat i on p ro g r a m w h e n th e F M H Atold th e m th a t th e p ro g ra m w a s c los e d to w h ites ); D ese rtO u t d oor A d ver. , I n c. v. C i ty of

Moreno V

alley , 103 F
. 3d 814 , 818 ( 9th C i r. 1996) (hol di ng t hat appl i c at i on f ors i gn per m i t s w oul d be f ut i l e w hen c i t y had
su e d p la in tiffs to re m o v e sig n s, a n d or d in a n ce “fl a tlyp ro h ib ited ” th e sig n s). D avi s ha s s t and i ng t o c hal l e nge o nl y hi s r ej e c t i o n und e rt he Tar r ant C ou n ty gu i d eli n es i n eff ect at th e ti m e h e a p p l i ed f or fel on y co u rt ap p oin tm en ts i n J une 2 00 5. H e l ac ks st an di ng t o c hal l e nge t he e s t ab l i s hm e nta nd i m pl e m e nt at i o n o f

t he 2 00 6 Pl an. I V . C l ai m s A gai nstt he D ef en d a n t Ju dges i n t hei r I ndi vi dual C apaci t i es A . T h e L e g a l S ta n d a rd for J u d icia l Im m u n ity Aju d g e g e n e r a lly h a s a b s o lu te im m u n ity fr o m s u its fo rd a m a g e s . Mi reles v . W aco , 5 0 2 U
. S. 9 , 9

– 1 0 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( c i t a t i o ns o m i t t e d )

. J ud i c i a l i m m un i t y i s an i m m u n ity fr o m s u it, n o t ju s t t h e u ltim a te a s s e s s m e n t o f d a m a g e s . I d. at 11 ( c i t i ng Mitch ell v. F

o rsy th , 47 2 U
. S. 5 11 , 5 26 ( 19 85 ) )

. The Cour tde s c r ibe d t he pur po s e s s e r ve d b y j udi c i ali m m uni t y i n F o rr es terv . W

h ite , 4 8 4 U .S

. 2 1 9 (19 8 8 ): [T ]h e n a tu re o f th e a dju d ic a tiv e fu n c tio n re q u ir e s a ju d g e fr e q u e n tly t o di sapp oi n tsom e of t h e m osti n t en se a n d u n govern able desi res t h at peopl e can h ave. . . . I f j u dg es w ere p e rs o n a ll y l i able f or erroneou s deci si on s, t h e res u l t i n g ava l an che of sui t s, m ostof

t h em f rivol ou s but vexati ou s, w ou l d p ro v id e p o w e rfu l i n ce n tiv e s fo r ju d ges t o a vo i d r e nde r i ng de c i s i o ns l i ke l y t o pr o vo ke s u ch s ui t s . The r e s u ltin gtim id ity w o u ld b e h a r d to d e t e c t o rco n tr o l, a n d it w o u ld m ani fe s t l y de t r ac tf

r o m i nde pe nde nta nd i m pa r t i ala dj udi c at i o n.N o. 07- 11223

See Forrester , 4 8 4U .S

. at 2 2 9(hold ing t h at aj u dge’ s d em otio nan d di sch arge of a 3 co urte mp loyeewerea dm inis tr ative actsnotp rote ct edb yj u dici al im munity); In Ex pa rte Vi rgin ia , 10 0 U .S. 339, 3 48( 18 80 ) (holdin g that aj udge’s pr eparationof an annualli st of indivi dual s eli gible to serve on grand juries was not a ju dicial act covered byjud icial im mu nity); Mo rr is onv . L ip scom b , 87 7 F .2d 463 , 465–66(6th Cir. 1 989) (fin ding th at a chief 10 I d. a t 2 2 6

– 2 7 (cita tion om itted ). Th er e ar e onl y t w o c i r c um st ance s und erw hi c h j udi c i ali m m uni t y m ay be
overcom e. “ F i rst , a j u dg e i s not im m u n e fr om l i abil i t y f or nonj u di ci alact i on s, i. e. , action s n ot tak en i n the j u d ge ’ s j u d i ci a lcap a ci ty. ” Mi reles , 502 U
. S. at11 ( c i t at i ons om i t t ed)

. “ Sec ond, a j udge i s noti m m une f orac t i ons , t hough j udi c i al i n n a tu r e , t a k e n in the com p l ete a b sen ce of allj u ri sd i cti on . ” Id

. ( c i t at i o ns o mi t t e d )

. A l l e g a t i o n s o f b a d fa i t h o rma l i c e a r e n o ts u f f i c i e n t t o o v e r c o me ju d ic ia l im m u n ity

. I d.

“ W he n a ppl i e d t o t he pa r ad i gm at i c j udi c i ala c t s i nvol ved i n r e s o l vi ng di s put e s b e t w e e n pa r t i e s w ho ha ve i nvo ke d t he j ur i s di c t i o n o f a c o ur t , t he d o c tr in e o f a b s o lu te ju d ic ia l im m u n ity h a s n o t b e e n p a r tic u la r lyco n tr o v e r s ia l,” b u t “ a ttem p ti n g to d ra w th e l i n e betw ee n tru l y j u d i ci a l a cts, for w h i ch i m m u n i ty i s app rop ri a t e, and ac t s t hat s i m pl y happen t o have be en done by j udges ” has p r o v e n t o b e a m o r e d iffic u lt t a s k

. F orre st er , 4 84 U
. S. a t2 27
. I n de t e r m i ni ng
w het hera par t i c ul arac tper f or m ed bya j udge i s ent i t l ed t o a bs ol ut e i m m uni t y, a court m u std raw a “di st i n ct i on b et w een j u di ci alact s and t h e adm i n i st rat i ve, l egi sl at i ve, orex ec ut i ve f unct i ons t hat j udges m ay o n oc c as i on b e ass i gned by l a w to pe rform

. ” I

d. ; se e a lso H u m i n skiv. Corsones , 396 F
. 3d 53, 75 ( 2d C i r. 20 05 ) ( “At t he m ar gi ns , i tc an be di f f i c ul tt o di s t i ngu i s h b e t w e e n t ho s e a c t i o ns t h at are j u di ci al , a n d w h i ch t h eref ore r eceive i m m u n i t y, an d those t h at hap pen t o ha ve been perf

orm ed b y j u dg es, bu tare adm i n i st rat i ve, l egi sl ative, or e xe c ut i ve i n na t u re. ” ( c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d) )

. Al t ho ugh a dm i ni s t r at i ve de c i s i o ns

“ m ay be essenti alt o t h e very f u n ct i on i n g of

t h e court s, ” such d eci si on s hav e not been regarded a s j u di ci alact s. 3N o. 07- 11223

ju dge ’ s declarationof a morato riu m onth e i ssuance of writs of re stitutionwas an administrative, not judicial , act, becau se the moratorium was a general order not conn ected to anyparticular liti gation that did not alter th e ri ghts an d li abiliti es of anyparties and only instructed court per sonn el on how to process the petitions mad e t o th e court, and that im mu nity di d n otapp ly); McMi llanv . Sve tanof f , 79 3 F .2d 1 49, 155(7th Cir. 1 986) (“Hiringan d firin g of em ployee s is typically a n a dm inis tr ative ta sk.

. . . Th e de ci sion to fire th e plaintiff did not involve j udicialdiscr etio n; in other words, the ju dgedid not utiliz e his e ducation , trainin g, and experie nce in the law to de cide wheth er or not to retainplaintiff. Th e administrative act of firingth e pl aintiff will not a ssist th e j udge in interpreti ngthe l aw or e x e rc i s i n gj u dic i aldi s c r e ti o ninth er e s o lutio nof di sp u te s.”); Goodwin v. CircuitC ourt , 72 9 F.2 d 54 1, 5 49 (8thC ir. 1 984) (countyj udge’s de cisio n to tran sfer hearin g officer not “offici al j u dici al act” b ut rath er“a dm inis tr ative pers onn eld ecis io n”) ; Lynch v. Jo hns on , 42 0 F .2d 8 18, 820(6th Cir. 1 970) (holdin g that co unty ju dgewas not performin g a ju dicial act when, while serving exofficio as the presiding officer of acounty “fiscal c ourt ,” th e j udge forcib lyremove d and jaile d a member of the fiscalcourt because it was notan“or dinary ju dicial tribunal” and inste ad c oul d be st bech aracter iz edas a b odythrough whichth e “affairs of th e county are man a ged” withp ow er s th at are“le gis lative a n d a dm inis tr ative”inn ature); Lewis v
. Blackburn , 55 5 F . Supp. 71 3, 7 23 (W.D.N.C. 1 983) (holdin g that aj udge’s appointment of ma gis tr ate s i s aminis te ri al act), rev’d on ot her gro unds , 75 9F .2 d 1 1 7 1 ( 4 thC ir

. 1 9 8 5); see also Su preme C ourtof Va. v. C

onsu mers Un ion of U.S., I nc. , 446 U.S. 719 , 731 (198 0) (hol ding th at the Supre me C ourtof Virginiawas actin g in a l egislative, not aj udicial , c ap ac it y when it issued a B ar Cod e governingth e action s of attorney s, be cau se “pro poun ding th e C ode was not a nac t of a dj u dicationb ut on e of rule makin g”) ; Richardsonv. K oshib a , 693F .2d 9 11, 914(9th Cir. 1982) (s cre ening dec isi onsby judic ial se lect ion pane l com pr i s e do f judges involve “ex ecutive”act s)

. 11 “ [W ] he t he ra n a c tb y a j udg e i s a ‘j udi c i al ’o ne r e l at e [ s ] t o t he na t ur e o f t he
a c t it s e lf, i.e ., w he t he ri ti s a f unc t i o n no r m al l y pe r f o r m e d b y a j udg e , a nd t o t he
e x p e c ta tio n s o f th e p a r tie s , i.e ., w het hert hey deal tw i t h t he j udge i n hi s j udi c i al
ca p a ci ty. ” Mi reles , 502 U
. S. at12 ( quot i ng St ump v . Spar km an , 435 U
. S. 349, 36 2 ( 19 78 ) ) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d)

. “ [ T] he r e l e va nti nqui r y i s t he

‘ n ature’an d ‘ f

u n ct i on ’of

t h e act , not t h e ‘ acti t sel f

. ’ In ot h er w ords, [ a court
s h o u ld ] lo o k to th e p a r tic u la r a c t’s r e la tio n to a g e n e r a l f u n c t i o n n o r m a lly p erform ed by a jud ge . . . . ” I d. at 13 (c i t ati on om i t t ed). Th i s c i rcui tha s adop t ed
a fo u r -fa c to rte s t fo rd e te r m in i n g w h e th e ra ju d g e ’ s a c tio n s w e r e ju d ic ia l in nat ur e : ( 1) w he t he r t he pr e c i s e ac t c o m pl ai ne d o f i s a no r m alj udi c i alf unc t i o n; ( 2) w h et he rt he a c t s o c c ur r e d i n t he c o ur t r o o m o ra ppr o pr i at e a dj unc ts pa c es s uc h a s t h e j udg e ’ s c ham be r s ; ( 3) 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 aN o. 07- 11223

Am ic us argu es th at this court should applyth e six-factor standard set out in 4 Cleavin ger v. Saxner , 474 U. S. 193, 201–02 ( 1985) (cit ing Bu tz v. Econo mou , 43 8 U .S. 47 8, 5 12 (197 8)), forw he t he ra n actor’s rol e i s an alo go us toth at of aj udge. Th at test i s usedto det erm ine wheth er a nonjudi ciala c t o r’s condu ct isentit ledto quasi -judicia l imm unity. Alth ou ghth er e areso meob viou s p arall el s b etwe enth e in quirie s intowh eth erth e act s of a ju dgean d th e acts of a public officialwho is not aj udge a r e “ ju d ic ia l” inn ature, these are di stinctin quirie s. See, e.g. , Mireles , 5 0 2 U. S. at 1 1 ; Forrester , 4 8 4U .S

. at 2 2 7 ; Ballard , 41 3 F.3 d at51 5. Nonethel ess, inli ght of the parallels b etweenth e underlyingn at ur e of th e inquiries, the analy sis inqu asi-j ud ic ia l im munity cases mayproveper suasive in the tr a dition al j u dici al im mu nityc ontext, a s dis cu sse d ingre ate r de tailb elow . 12 ca se p e n d in gb e for e th e co u rt; a n d (4) w h e th e r th e a cts a ro se d ire ctly ou t of a vi si tt o t he j udge i n hi s of f i c i alc apac i t y. B a lla rd v. W a ll , 41 3 F
. 3 d 51 0 , 51 5 ( 5 th 4 Ci r . 2 00 5) ( c i t i ngMali n a v. G on zal es , 9 9 4 F .2 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 )). T h e s e fa c to r s a r e b r o a d ly c o n s tr u e d in fa v o r o f im m u n ity

. I d. ( c i t i ng Mal i na , 994 F .2 d a t 1 1 2 5 ). B . A n a ly s is Th e di st r i c tc our tf

ound t hat t he def

enda n t jud ges’ac t s w er e j udi c i al becau se t h e app oi n t m en tof coun seli s a j u di ci alact
. Th e app oi n t m en tof coun sel fo rin d ig e n t d e fe n d a n ts in c r im in a l c a s e s is a n o r m a l ju d ic ia l fu n c tio n . S e e , e.g ., B i rch v. Maza n d er , 678 F
. 2d 754 , 756 ( 8th C i r. 198 2) ( “ [ T ] h e act s c om pl ai n ed of
c ons i stof

t he ac c ept ance of

a pl ea a n d t he appoi nt m entof c ounse l

. Cl ear l y, th e se a re fu n ctio n s n o rm a ll yp e rfo rm e d b ya j u d g e .”) ; Dav i s v . St a t e of N. Y. , N o. 90 Ci v. 6 17 0 (M BM ) , 1 99 1 W L 15 63 51 , a t *2 ( S. D
. N
. Y. Aug. 6 , 1 99 1) ( “ The
a p p o in tm e n t o f co u n se l i s a j u d icia l ac t.” (cita tion s o m itted )); E d w ard s v. Hare , 68 2 F. Supp

. 1 52 8, 1 53 1– 33 ( D
. U t ah 19 88 ) (r e f us i ng t o di s t i ngu i s h b e t w e e n t he cl ea rl y jud i ci a lact of de term i n i n g th a t a p a rti cu l a r d efen d a n t ha s th e righ t t o c our t
- appoi nt ed c ounse l and t he pro c es s of c onnec t i ng an i ndi gentcr i m i nal de fe nda n tw i t h a c o ur t
- ap po i nt e d a t t o r ne y— t he “ m e c hani c s ” o f o bt ai ni ng co u n se l); Lew i s v. County of Lehigh , 516 F. Supp. 1369, 1370–71 ( E
. D
. Pa. 1981) ( “ Th e j udges ’ i nvol vem ent
. . . c ons t i t ut es so l el y t he exe r c i se of t hei rj udi c i al fu n ctio n s— a p p o in tin ga tto r n e y s to re p re se n t in d ige n t d e fen d a n ts. .
. . ”).N o. 07- 11223

13 H o w e ve r , t he al l e ge d w r o ngf ulac ti n t hi s c as e do e s no tc o nc e r n t he a ppo i nt m e nt
o f c o uns e li n a s pe c i f

i c s ui tb y t he j udg e pr e s i di ng o ve rt hats ui t , b utr at he rt he sel ect i on of

app l i can t s f

or i n cl u si on on a rot ati n g li st o f app l i can t s el i gi bl e f or c o u r t a p p o in tm e n ts p u r s u a n t t o a co u n ty w id e p o lic y . T h e a d v o c a te s o n b o th s id e s o f t h i s i s s u e fin d s o m e s u p p o r t fo rth e ir p ositi on s i n the cas e law

. S ev era lcou rts h a ve s p ecif i ca l l y h eld th a t a j u d ge ’ s ac ts in cr e a tin ga n d im p le m e n t i n g a p la n o rp o lic yfo rth e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l,
a n d n o t s im p lyth e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l in a p a r tic u la rca s e , a r e ju d ic i a l in nat ur e . I n Haw ki n s v. W alvoor d , 2 5 S .W .3 d 8 8 2 (T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), th e co u r t h e ld t hat( 1) j udg e s ’r at i f i c at i o n of a pl an t hatr e qui r e d a t t o r ne ys t o e i t he ra c c e pt court ap poi n t m en t s t o represent i n di gen tcr i m i n aldefen da n t s o rpa y a yearl y fee a n d ( 2 ) j u d ge s’ap p oin tm e n t o f a n attorn ey u n d er th a t plan , w ere j u d i ci a lacts
e n tit le d to a b s o lu te ju d ic ia l im m u n ity

. I d. a t8 91
. Si m i l ar l y, i n R o t h v

. Ki ng , 44 9 F. 3d 1 27 2 ( D
. C. Ci r . 2 00 6) , t he D
. C. Ci rcui t hel d t hatj udg e s a c t e d i n a j udi c i alc ap ac i t y i n c r e at i ng a fam i l y- c o ur ta t t o r ne y pa ne l s ys t e m ands e l e c t i ng a tt o r n e y s fo rin c lu s i o n o n a p a n e l. I d. a t1 28 6– 87
. I n R o th , t h e chi ef j u dg e of t h e Su peri or C ou rtof t h e D i st ri ctof C o lu m b ia i ssued an adm i n i st rat i ve order
c r e a t i ngac o m m i t t e e t o r e c om m end panel s of des i gnat ed and appr ove d at t or neys to r e p r e s e n t in d ig e n t p a r tie s . I d. a t1 27 7. Pr i o rt o t he c r e at i o n o f t he
c o m m i t t e e , s upe r i o rc o ur t j udg e s ap po i nt e d c o uns e l f r o m a l i s t o f vo l unt e e r s w ho h a d n o t b e e n s u b je c t e d t o a n ys o r t o f s c r e e n in gp r o c e s s . I d. B ased on ap pl i cat i on s s u bm i t t ed by a t t o r ne ys a nd e va l uat i o ns s ubm i t t ed by sup eri or c ou rt j u dg es, t h e com m i t t ee is sued a rep orttha trecom m en ded a li stof att orneys f

or in c lu s i o n o n t h e p a n e ls

. I d. at1277–7 8. The c hi ef j udge i ss ued an ad m i ni s t r at i ve o r de re s t ab l i s hi ng t he a t t o r ne y pa nel s i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h t he
com m i ttee’ s reco m m en d a tio n s . I d. a t1 27 8. The D
. C. Ci r c ui tf o und t hatt he
c r e at i o n o f t he pa ne l s ys t e m and t he s e l e c t i o n o f at t o r ne ys f o ri nc l us i o n o n t heN o. 07- 11223

14 panel s w er e j udi c i al , notadm i ni st r at i ve, ac t s, and w er e pr ot ec t ed byj udi c i al im m u n ity

. I

d. at1286–8 7. In a re c e n t u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n o n ju d ic ia l im m u n ity , D unn v . Ken ne dy , N o. 0 7 -50 5 4 8 , 20 0 8 W L 16 2 8 5 5 ( 5 th C i r. Ja n . 17 , 20 0 8 ), this cou rt he l d tha t a j u dg e’ s deci si on t o rem ove an att orney fr om a courtapp oi n t m en tl i stw as a ju d ic ia l a c t. I

d. at *1. Th e D unn cour tbased i t s hol di ng i n parton t he fac tt hat

“ t h e governing T e x a s s t atute ‘ au t h ori ze[ s] onl y t h e j u dg es, ’or t h e j u dg es’ de s i gne e , t o a ppo i ntc o uns e lf o ri ndi ge ntde fe nda nt s i n t he c o unt y andt o a do pt
a n d p u b lis h w r itt e n p r o c e d u r e s fo rt h e t im e lya n d fa ira p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l,” i d. ( quo t i ng Tex
. Cod e Cr i m . Pr o . Ann. a r t
. 2 6. 04 (Ver no n 2 00 6) ) , a nd t hat“ t he
a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l to re p r e s e n t in d ig e n t d e fe n d a n ts is a fu n c tio n n o r m a lly p e r fo r m e d b y a ju d g e a c tin gin h is ju d ic ia l ca p a c ity ,” i d. ( c i t i ng R o th , 449 F. 3d
a t 1 2 8 6

– 8 7 ; Hawki ns , 25 S. W
. 3d at 891)

. Th e D unn c o ur ta l s o b as e d i t s ho l di ng on the fa ct t h a t t h ere w a s n o a l l eg a ti on tha t t h e ju d g e m a d e th e d ecisi on to
r e m o ve t he at t o r ne y any w he r e o t he r t han i n t he c o ur t ho us e b ui l di ng, t hatt he d e c is io n c e n t e r e d a r o u n d a c a s e p e n d i n g i n c o u r tin a s m u c h a s th e a t t o r n e y ’s
r e m o va lw as b as e d o n hi s c o nduc ts t e m m i ng f r o m hi s r e pr e s e nt at i o n o f i ndi ge nt def endant s bef

or e t he c our t , and t hat t he dec i si on ar os e f r om a v i si tt o t he j udge i n her of f i ci alcapaci t y, as t h e att orney’ s pract i ce bef ore t h e courtan d su bm i ssi on of paym entvo ucher s w er e a l ldi r ec t ed t ow ar d t he j udge i n herof f i c i alc apac i t y. Id

. ( c i t i ng B allard , 4 1 3 F .3d a t 5 1 5

– 1 8 ). Th e r e i s a l s o a u t h o r i t ys upp o r t i ng t he pr o po s i t i o n t hatde c i s i o ns r e ga r di ng
w hi c h at t o r ne ys t o i nc l ude o n a c o ur ta ppo i nt m e ntl i s t , a s o ppo s e d t o de c i s i o ns
r e g a r d in ga p p o in tm e n t in a p a r tic u la rc a s e , a r e a d m in is tr a tiv e , n o t ju d ic ia l, in nat ur e . I n Mitch ell v. Fish b ein , 3 77 F. 3d 1 57 , 1 74 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 4) , t he Se c o nd Ci r c ui tw as c o nf

r o nt e d wi t h the que s t i o n o f w he t he ra s t at e - c o ur ts c r e e ni ng com m i t t ee’ s deci si on t o rem ove an att orney fr om a p a n e l o f att orneys cert i f i ed to serv e a s cou rt- a p p oin ted cou n sel fo r in d i ge n t de fen d a n ts w a s en ti tl ed toN o. 07- 11223

15 q u a si- j u d i ci a lab solu te i m m u n i ty. A s th e defen d a n t j u d ge s p oin t ou t, Mitch ell concerned t h e i ssue of qu asi

- j u di ci alabs o lu t e i m m u n i t y— t h e doct ri n e un der
w h i ch a p rivate act or m ay be a f f orded the ab sol u t e i m m uni t y o r di nar i l y accorded ju d g e s ac ti n g w i th i n the scop e of the i r j u ri sd i cti on i f th e p ri va te acto r’ s role is f u n ct i on al l y com pa rable to th a tof a j u dg e or i f

t h e pri vate act or’ s act s are i nt egr al l y r el at ed t o a n ongoi ng j udi c i alpr oce ed i ng— notj udi c i ali m m uni t y. H ow ever, becau se “ i m m u n i t y i s j u st i f i ed and defi n ed by t h e f unc t i o ns i t pro tects
a n d serv es, n ot by the pe rson to w h om i t attach es,” F orre st er , 4 8 4 U. S. a t2 27, t h e Mitch ellc our t ’ s anal ys i s of w het hera nonj udi c i alact or ’ s ac t s w er e j udi c i al f ort he p urpo se of

as se ss i ng quasi

- j udi c i ali m m uni t y c annotbe s ai d t o b e com pl e t e l y i nap pl i c ab l e t o t he i m m uni t y i s s ue pr e s e nt e d i n t he i ns t antc as e, esp eciall y in l i gh t of the fa ct t h a t Mitch ellex ten sively c ite d j u d i ci a li m m u n i ty
cases i n i t s ana l ysi s. I n assess i n g w h et h er t h e com m i t t ee’ s deci si on s w ere i nt egr al l y r el at ed t o a j ud i c i alpr oc ee di ng, t he c our tdr ew heavi l y o n se ver al j u di ci ali m m u n i t y deci si on s:

Func t i o ns t hatm i ghtb e de e m e d i nt e gr al l y r e l at e d t o t he j u di ci alprocess w h en u n dertaken in t h e contextof a parti cul ar case m ayb e v i e w e d a s a dm i ni s t r at i ve w he n t he y ar e und e r t ak e n o ut s i de t hat cont ext , an d “ [ a] dm i ni st r at i ve dec i si ons , ev en t hough t hey m ay be essenti alt o t h e very f u n ct i on i n g of

t h e cou rt s, h ave n ot
. . . been reg a rd ed as jud i ci a lacts,” F o rr es terv. W

h ite , 484 U
. S. 219, 228, 108 S

. C t
. 538 , 98 L
. E d. 2d 555 ( 198 8)

. For exam pl e, a j u dg e ha s been h eld to h a ve ab solu te i m m u n i ty from a cla im o f con sp i ra cyto e m p a n e l a n a ll-w h ite ju r y in a p a r tic u la rcr im in a l tr ia l, s e e W hi t e v. B l oom , 6 2 1 F .2 d 2 7 6 , 2 7 9 -8 0 (8 th C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 449 U
. S. 995, 101 S. C t
. 533 , 66 L
. E d. 2d 292 ( 198 0) , bu tt o h a v e n o such i m m u n i t y f

rom a cl ai m of

raci aldi scr i m i n ati on i n t h e prepa rat i on of ge ner alj ury l i st s t o a f fec tal lf

ut ure trial s, a j ob t hat w as “m i n i sterial, ” se e Exp a rte V irg in ia , 100 U
. S. ( 10 O t t o) 339, 348, 25 L. Ed. 6 76 ( 18 79 )

. In t he l at t e rc as e , t he j udg e ha d t he responsi bi l i t y of

“ prepa r[ i n g] an n u al l y a l i stof such i n h abit an t s of t h e coun t y . . . ‘ as he sh a llth in k w el lqu al i f i ed to serve as j u rors , b ein g p erso n s of sou n d j u d gm en t a n d f ree f rom l eg a lex cep ti on , ’ ” i d. at 349 ( Fi e l d, J. , di s s e nt i ng) , a t as k t hat “ m i ght as w e l l hav e beenN o. 07- 11223

16 co m m itted to a p riv a te p e rs o n a s to on e h o ld in gth e o ffic e of a ju d g e ,” id

. a t 3 4 8 (m ajor ityop in ion ). T h e C om m i t t ee’ s j ob of f orm u l ati n g a l i stof

att orneys deem ed q u a l i fi ed to rep rese n t i n d i ge n t de fen d a n ts a ccu sed o f cri m es, a n d i ts a d d i ti on s to or d eleti on s from th a t li st, b ea r a m a rk ed si m i l a ri ty to t h e Ex p ar t e Vi rgi ni a j u dg e ’ s r espon sibi l i t y f or c om pi l i n g a l i stof qua l i f i e d j ur o r s . The Com m i t t e e ’ s de c i s i o ns ar e no tr e l at e d t o a ny par t i c ul arc ri m i n a lpr os ec ut i on. The 18- B Panelex i st s so t hat j udg e s m ays e l e ct a t t orne ys f r o m t he l i s tw ho w i l lb o t h pr o vi de f ut ur e r e p r e s e nt a t i o n t o i nd i g e ntd e fe nd a nt s a nd r e c e i ve c o m pe ns at i o n f

o rt ho s e s e r vi c e s . But , a s di s c us s e d a bo ve , i n a ny give n c as e , t he c o ur tm aya ppo i nta n a t t o r ne y w ho i s no to n t he 1 8 -B P a n e l. F u r t h e r , e v e n th e C o m m it t e e ’s r eje c t io n o f M it c h e ll 's i ndi vi du ala ppl i c at i o n di d no ta f fe c ta ny pa r t i c ul arc as e , f o rt he Com m i t t e e ' s l e t t e ro f r ej e c t i o n st at e d t hatM i t c he l lw as t o c o nt i nue t o “ hand l e t o c o nc l us i o n” any m at t e rt o w hi c h he was t he n a s s i gne d. Mitch ell , 377 F
. 3d at 174
. Th e Mitch ellcou rtv i ew ed t h e a ctof f orm u l ati n g a l i st
o f a tt o r n e y s d e e m e d q u a lifie d t o r e p r e s e n t in d ig e n t d e fe n d a n ts a s a n in h e r e n tly
a d m i n i stra tive act, reg a rd l ess of w h eth er th e a ctor w a s a jud ge or n ot. It
a n a l og i ze d this act to the pr ep a ra ti on o f an an n u a ll i st of i n d i vid u a l s eli gible to
s e r ve o n g r andj ur i e s , w hi c h t he Supr e m e C o ur ti n ExPa rte V irg in ia , 1 00 U
. S. 339 ( 188 0) , f

ou n d n ott o b e a ju di ci alactenti t l ed to j u di ci ali m m u n i t y w h en perf orm ed by a j u dg e. Th e ExPa rte V irg in ia de c i s i o n r e s t e d o n t h e fol l o w i ng
r eas oni ng: T h e d u ty of selecti n g jur ors m i gh t as w ellh a ve be en com m i tted to a p r iv a te p e r s o n a s to o n e h o ld in gth e o ffi c e o f a ju d g e . It o fte n is g iv e n t o cou n ty com m i ssion ers, or su p erv i sors , or a sse sso rs. In f orm er t i m es, t h e sel ect i on w as m ad e by t h e sheri f f

. I n such cases, i tsurel y i s not a j u di ci al act , i n an y such sense as i s c on t en ded f or h e re . It is m e re ly a m in iste ria l a ct, a s m u ch so a s th e a ct of a sh e riff ho l di ng an e xe c ut i o n, i n de t e r m i ni ng upo n whatpi e c e o f pr o pe r t y he w i l lm a k e a l ev y, or t h e a ct of a ro a d m a ster i n selecti n g lab ore rs to w ork u pon t h e roads. Th at t h e j u rors are s el ect ed f or a court m ak es n o d i ff ere n ce. S o a re co u r t-c ri ers, t i p stav es, [an d ] sh erif fs [ ]. Is th eir el ection or th eir ap p oin tm en t a j u d i ci a lact? ExPa rte V

irg in ia , 1 0 0 U .S . a t 3 4 8
.N o. 07- 11223

17 A f t erc ons i der i ng t he appl i c abl e l egals t andard, t he aut hor i t i es t hat
s upp o r tea c h of

si de of t he i m m uni t y que s t i o n i n t hi s c as e , a nd t he und e r l yi ng pur po s e o f

t he j udi c i ali m m uni t y do c t r i ne , w e b e l i e ve tha t t he a c to f s e l e c t i ng ap pl i can t s f

or i n cl u si on on a rot ati n g l i stof att orneys el i gi bl e f or c ou rt ap poi n t m en t s i s i n extr i cabl y l i n ked to a n d can n otb e sep arated fr om the actof ap po i nt i ng c o uns e li n a pa r t i c ul arc as e , w hi c h i s c l e ar l y a j u di ci ala c t , a nd t her ef or e t hat t he j udges ’ac t s ati ss ue i n t hi s sui tm ustbe c ons i dere d t o b e protec t ed by j u di ci ali m m u n i t y. W e di sagree w i t h t h e Mitch ellcourtt h at t h e act of s el ec t i ng qual i f

i ed at t or neys f

ori ncl usi on o n an appoi nt m en t li stc an be ri gi dl y separated f

rom t h e a ct o f ap poi n t i n g an att orney i n a parti cul ar case. T h e app oi n t m en tprocess m u stb e v i ew ed h ol i st i cal l y. In t h i s c ase, t h e sel ect i on o f a p p lic a n ts fo rin c lu s io n o n th e lis t a n d th e a c tu a l a p p o in tm e n t of a tt o r n e y s in
s p e c ific ca s e s o c c u ra s p a r t o f a n a p p o in tm e n t p r o c e s s th a t c a n n o t b e d iv id e d in a pr i nci pl ed w ay i nt o j udi c i aland adm i ni st r at i ve ac t s. I n l i ghtof t he fac tt hat th e d efen d a n t j u d ge s h a ve ve ryl i m i ted discretion i n de ci d i n g w h i ch a ttorn ey to ap poi nt i n a s pe c i f

i c c as e
— t he y m ay o nl y de vi at e f r o m t he r o t at i o n s ys t em for good cause— deci si on s abou tw h i ch att orneys shou l d be p l aced on t h e w h eel f unct i onal l y de t er m i ne w hi c h at t or ney ac t ual l y w i l lbe appoi nt ed i n a par t i c ul ar case. A l so, t h e na t u re of t h e deci sion of

w h et h er t o sel ectan app l i can tf or i ncl usi on o n t he appoi nt m entw heeland t he dec i si on o f w het herto a p p oi nt an at t o r ne y i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l ; i n b o t h s i t u a t i o n s , t he j udg e m us t as s e s s a n a t t o r ne y’ s c o m pe t e nc e a nd a bi l i t y t o e f fe c t i ve l y r e pr e s e nt
c l i e nt s b e f

o r e t he c o ur t
. Al t ho ugh t he s e l e c t i o n de c i s i o n i s no tm ad e i n t he
c ont ext o f a sp eci f

i c s ui t , t he dec i si on w i l lpr es um abl y be m ade b as ed upon an att orneys’condu cti n ot h er c ases bef ore t h e c ou rt
. I n deed , court s hav e not
s tr ic t l y lim ite d ju d ic ia l im m u n ity to a c tio n s ta k e n in th e co n te x t o f a s p e c ific l awsui t , and at l e as to ne c o ur tha s f o und t hata c t s t ak e n c o m pl e t e l y o ut s i de t he contextof

a speci f i c adj u di cat i on a re p roperl y cl assi f i ed as j u di ci alan d p rot ect edN o. 07- 11223

The defen dantj udges cl early had jurisdictionto selectapp licants for inclusio n on a 5 rotating li st be cau se th eywere actingpursuant to an explicit statuto ry grant of authorityin es tabl ish ing and imp lem enti ng a policy fo r the ap poi ntm ent of couns el in Tarran t County. 18 b ya b s o lu te ju d ic ia l im m u n ity

. S e e S p a r k s v . C h a r a c t e r& Fi t n e s s Co mm. , 859 F. 2d 4 28 , 4 34 ( 6t h Ci r . 1 98 8) (f i ndi ng t hata c t i o ns t ak e n b y t he K e nt uc ky Su pre m e Courtand i t s C om m i t t ee on C harac t erand Fi t nes s i n denyi ng an a p p l i ca n t a d m i ssion to t h e sta te ba r w ere j u d i ci a lacts to w h i ch ab solu te im m u n ity a pp l i ed). Th e Su prem e C ou rtha s hel d that t h e rel ated doct ri n e of prosecutor i ali m m u n i t y, w h i ch i s j u st i f i ed by a si m i l ar rati on al e an d gov erned b ys im ila rru le s , m a ya p p lyto a c ts m a d e o u ts id e t h e co n te x t o f a s p e c ific la w s u it
w he n t he a c t s a r e “ di rec t l y c o nne c t e d wi t h t he c o nduc to f a t r i al” a nd “n ece ssa ri l y re q u i re lega lk n ow l ed ge an d the ex ercise of rel a ted discretion

. ” S ee V a n D e K

a mp v. G o ld ste in , 129 S. C t. 8 5 5 , 8 5 8–64 ( 2009) (hol di ng t hat prosecutor i ali m m u n i t y barred su i tagainsta di st ri ctatt orney a n d h i s c h i ef
as si st ant f

orfai l i ng t o: ( 1) est abl i sh an i nf or m at i on sys t em c ont ai ni ng pot ent i al i m peac hm entm a terialab ou t i n form a n ts t o en su re th a t de p u ty d i st r i c tat t or neys com p l i ed w i th the i r con sti tu ti on a lob l i ga ti on to d is c l ose ag ree m en ts w i th i n form a n ts w h o testi fy at tri a l ; an d ( 2 ) a d eq u a tel y tra i n or su p erv i se d ep u ty d istr ict a tto rn e y s c o n ce rn in gth e ir ob li g a tion to d isclo se su ch in for m a tion ). U l t i m atel y, t h e a ct s at i ssue i n t h i s c ase i n vol ve t h e perf orm an ce of

du t i es w h i ch
ar e i nt i m at el y c onnec t ed t o a j udge’ s adj udi c at or y ro l e, an d are t her ef or e j udi c i al i n na t u re. S ee B allard , 4 1 3 F .3 d a t 5 1 5
.

5 The di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o pe r l y di s m i s s e d t he c l ai m s a ga i ns tt he de fe nda nt j u dg es i n t h ei r i n di vi du alcapaci t i es. V . C laim s A g a in st T a rr a n t C o u n ty T h e di st ri ctcourtf

ou n d that D avis ha d fai l ed to sta te a cl ai m against T arran t C o u n ty becau se t h e defen da n tj u dg es act ed on beh al f of t h e st ate of T exas, no tTar r antCount y. Davi s a nd t he TFD P as s e r tt hatt he de fe nda ntN o. 07- 11223

19 j u dg es act ed on beh al f of T arran tC ou n t y i n sel ect i n g ap pl i can t s f or i n cl u si on on t he r o t a t i n gl i s to f

a t t o r n e y s e l i g ib l e f

o rfe l o n yc o u r ta p p o i n t m e n t s i n T a r r a nt C ount y be c ause t hey w er e po l i c ym aker s f orTarr ant C ount y u ndert he Texas F a i r D efen se A ct. M u n icip a l l ia b il ityu n d e r 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 8 3 re q u ire s p r o o f o f ( 1 ) a p oli cy m a k er; (2) a n off i c ia l p o li cy ; an d ( 3 ) a viol a ti on of con sti tu ti on a lri gh ts
w h o s e “m o v in gfo r c e ” is th e p o lic yo rcu s to m . R i v e r a v . Hou st o n I nde p. Sc h. D ist. , 349 F. 3d 244, 247 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( c i t i ng P i ot row skiv. C i ty of Hou st on , 237 F. 3d 567 , 578 ( 5t h C i r . 200 1) )

. The po l i c ym ak e rm us tha ve f i nalpo l i c ym ak i ng a u th o r ity

. I

d. ( c i t i ng C ity of S t. L o u is v
. P ra p ro tn ik , 4 8 5 U
. S. 1 1 2, 127, 108 ( 198 8) )

. “ [W ] h et h er a part i cul ar of f i ci alha s f

i n alpol i cym ak i n g au t h ori t y i s a qu est i on of

s t at e law . ” Jett v . D a lla s In d ep . S ch

. D ist. , 491 U
. S. 701, 737 ( 1989) ( c i t at i on and i nt er nalquot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. M uni c i pall i abi l i t y c annotbe
s u s ta in e d u n d e ra th e o r yo f r e s p o n d e a t s u p e r io r . R i vera , 3 49 F. 3d a t2 47 ( c i t i ng Bd

. of Co u n ty Co mm ’

r s of B r y a n Co u n ty v . B r o wn , 5 2 0 U .S

. 3 9 7 , 4 0 3 (19 9 7 ); Pi ot r ow s ki , 2 3 7 F .3 d a t 5 7 8 ). “[T ]h e u n c o n s tit u tio n a l c o n d u c t m u s t b e d ir e c tly att ribu t able t o t h e m u n i ci pa l i t y t h rough s o m e sor tof of f i ci alact i on or im p r im a tu r ; iso la te d u n c o n s t i t u tio n a l a c tio n s b ym u n ic ip a l e m p lo y e e s w ill
a l m ost n ev er tri gg er li a b i l i ty. ” Pi ot r ow s ki , 237 F. 3d at578. W e ha ve h el d that un der T exas l aw , “ [ a] l ocalju d g e a ctin g i n hi s orher j u di ci alcapaci t y i s not consi dered a l ocal govern m en tof f i ci alw h ose act i on s are a ttrib u tab l e to th e cou n ty. ” Kru eg er v. R ei m er , 66 F. 3d 75, 77 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) (c ita tio n s o m itt e d ); seealso C l an t on v. Harri s Cou n ty, T ex. , 893 F
. 2 d 75 7 , 758 ( 5th C i r. 1 990 ) (“ T exas di st ri ctj u dg es actf or t h e st ate i n app oi n t i n g coun self or i n di gen tcr i m i n aldefen da n t s, a n d t h e cou n t y i s n otrespon sibl e un der § 1983 f or th e ira c tio n s in th is re g a r d .”); Ham i l lv . Wr ight , 870 F
. 2d 103 2, 103 7 ( 5th C i r. 198 9) ( st ati n g t h at “ T exas l aw m ak es onl y st ate c ou rtj u dg es r esp o n sibl e f or appoi nt i ng at t or neys f ori ndi gentc r i m i naldef endant s” and “ [ a] c ount y c anN o. 07- 11223

20 ex ercise n o a u th ority ov er sta te cou rt j u d ge s, as t h e latter a re n ot cou n ty
o f f ic ia ls ”); C la rk v. T

a rr a n t Co u n ty , 7 98 F. 2d 7 36 , 7 44 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 6) ( s t at i ng t h at Texa s di st ri ctj u dg es “ are un den i ably st ate el ect ed of f i ci al s” )

. A s di scussed abov e, t he ac tof

s el ec t i ng appl i c ant s f ori ncl usi on o n a r ot at i ng l i stof at t or neys el i gi bl e f

or c ou rtapp oi n t m en t s i s i n extr i cabl y l i n ked t o a n d can n otb e separated f r om t he ac tof

appoi nt i ng c ounse li n a part i c ul arcas e, w hi c h i s c l ear l y a j udi c i al
a c t u n d e rT e x a s la w . Se e C l an t on , 893 F
. 2d at758; Ha m ill , 870 F. 2d at1037. Bec aus e t he de fe nda ntj u dg e s a c t e d i n t he i rj udi c i alc ap ac i t i e s i n s e l e c t i ng ap pl i can t s f

or i n cl u si on on the rot ati n g l i stof att orneys el i gi bl e f

or f el on y court appoi nt m ent s i n T ar r ant C ount y pur suantt o t hei robl i gat i ons u nderthe Texas F ai r D efen se A ct , T arran tC ou n t y m ay n otbe held l i able f or t h ose act s. V I . C l ai m s A gai nst t he D ef endant Jud ges i n t hei r O f f i ci al C apaci t i es T h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed D avis ’ s cl ai m s agai n stt h e defen da n tj u dg es i n t he i ro f

f i c i a lc a p a c i t i e s o n t he g r o un d o f El e v e nt h Am e nd m e nti m m uni t y. T exas j u dg es are en t i t l ed to E l even t h A m en dm en ti m m u n i t y f or c l ai m s asser t ed
a g a in s t t h e m in th e iro ffic ia l ca p a c itie s a s s ta te a c t o r s . W arn ock v. Pecos Cou n ty, T

ex. , 8 8 F .3 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ); Hol l ow ay v. W alker , 765 F. 2d 517, 5 1 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). D av i s ha s a s s e r t e d a c l ai m f o rpr o s pe c t i ve de c l ar at o r y rel i e f, a nd t he E l ev en th A m en d m en t do es n ot ba r cl a i m s f or p rosp ective reli ef ag a i n st state
o ffic ia ls a c tin gin th e iro ffic ia l ca p a c ity

. S ee Edel m an v . Jo r dan , 415 U
. S. 651, 6 6 4 (1 9 7 4 ); Ex Par t e You ng , 2 0 9 U .S . 1 2 3 , 1 5 5

– 5 6 (1 9 0 8 ); Nelson v. Un i v. of T ex. atD al l as , 5 3 5 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 1

– 2 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); B re n n a n v. S t ew art , 834 F. 2d 124 8, 125 2 ( 5th C i r. 198 8)

. D avis ’ s c l ai m f or prospect i ve decl arator y rel i ef ag ai ns tt he de fe nda ntj udg e s i n t he i ro f f i c i alc ap ac i t i es i s notb ar r e d b y t he E l even t h A m en dm en t
. H ow ever, D avis ’ s cl ai m forp rospect i ve decl arator y rel i ef i s m ootbecau se t h e T arran t C ou n t y gu i del i n es i n ef fect at t h e t i m e he ap pl i edN o. 07- 11223

21 fo rfe lo n yco u r t a p p o in tm e n ts in J u n e 2 0 0 5 a r e n o lo n g e rin e ffe c t, a n d D a v is l ac ks st andi ng t o c hal l enge t he c urr entpol i c y. V I I . C oncl usi on D avi s ha s s t and i ng t o c hal l e nge o nl y hi s r ej e c t i o n und e rt he Tar r ant C ou n ty g u i d eli n es in e ff ect at th e ti m e h e a p p l i ed f or fel on y cou rt ap p oin tm en ts i n J un e 2 0 0 5
. Hi s c l a i m s a g a i ns tt he d e fe nd a ntj ud g e s i n t he i ri nd i v i d ual
c a p a c itie s a r e b a r r e d b yth e d o c tr in e o f ju d ic ia l im m u n ity

. D a v is ’ s cla im s ag ai ns tt he de fe nda ntj udg e s i n t he i ro f f i c i alc ap ac i t i es ar e b ar r e d b y t he E l ev en th A m en d m en t. D a vis h a s fa i l ed to state a cl a i m ag a i n st T a rra n t C ou n ty be c aus e t he de fe nda ntj udg e s a c t e d i n t he i rj udi c i alc ap ac i t i e s i n s e l e c t i ng ap pl i can t s f

or i n cl u si on on the rot ati n g l i stof att orneys el i gi bl e f

or f el on y court ap poi n t m en t s i n T arran tC ou n t y. A ccor di n gl y, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourt i s A F F I RMED.