A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t31,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT M I CH AE L D. VAN DE E L E N, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. RO BERT FAI RCH I LD; ALLEN A D R I A N ; ST E V E N SI X , D i s tr i ct Judg es, D ou glas C ou nty , K ansas; SHERRY BERN HA RD T, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 3468 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV - 2 0 1 7 - KHV)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lain tiff M ich a e l V a n D e e len filed th is p ro se a c tio n a g a in st d e fe n d a n ts R obertFai r chi l d, A dr i an A l l en, and St even Si x, di s tr i ctj udges i n D ougl as C ounty , K ans as , and Sherr yB ernhar dt , an admi ni s tr at i ve as s i s t antt o J udges-2-

Fai r chi l d and A l l en. M r . V an D eel en br oughta cl ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1983 as w el l as s t at e- l aw cl ai m s fornegl i gents upervi s i on and defamat i on. T he di s tr i ct courtgr ant ed the defendant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s the fe der al - l aw cl ai m s and decl i ned s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overthe s t at e- l aw cl ai m s . M r . V an D eel en a p p e a l e d . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. BA CK GR OUND I n 1997 M r . V an D eel en fi l ed a feder al l aw s ui tcl ai m i ng thatPaul a M ar t i n, a D o u g las C o u n tyd istric t ju d g e w h o is n o t a p a rtyto th is a c tio n , v io late d h is c iv il r i ght s w hi l e pr es i di ng overa ca s e i n w hi ch he w as a pl ai nt i ff. A ft erthe part i es se ttl e d th e fe d e ra l law su it, M r. V a n D e e len b e c a m e a p a rtyto o th e r la w su its in D o u g las C o u n ty . H is p rim a ryc o n ten tio n h e re is th a t in re talia tio n fo r h is la w su it a g a in st J u d g e M a rtin a n d th is la w su it, th e d e fe n d a n ts h a v e e n g a g e d in c o n d u c t in c o n n e c tio n w ith th o se o th e r D o u g las C o u n tyc a se s d e sig n e d to d e p riv e h im o f h is con st i tuti on al ri gh t s. M r . V an D eel en makes t he fol l ow i ng al l egat i ons i n hi s A m ended a nd S u p p lem e n tal P e tit io n (th e A m e n d e d C o m p lain t), file d o n Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 . F irst, J udge Fai r chi l d canc el l ed a c as e- m anage m entconfe r ence i n C as e N o. 02C 680 w ith o u t c a u s e o r e x p la n a tio n . Second, M r . V an D eel en w as deni ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s thr ough a se rie s o f a c tio n s ta k e n in C a se N o . 0 4 C 5 6 6 . Ju d g e Ja c k M u rp h y , w h o is n o t a p arty , rec u sed h im self thre e m o n ths a fter the ca se w as fil ed an d o n e w ee k b efo re-3-

a s chedul ed hea r i ng on M r . V an D eel en’ s m ot i on fordefa ul tj udgm ent . M r . V an D eel en w as not i fi ed of the r ecus al onl ybyt el ephone a nd w as pr ovi ded w i th no r eas on fori t . A ft erJ udge M urphyr ecus ed hi m s el f, J udge Fai r chi l d, w ho i s the admi ni s tr at i ve j udge forD ougl as C ounty , r eas s i gned the ca s e t o J udge Si x, w ho w as new l yappoi nt ed and noty ets w or n i n. A ft erbei ng i nform ed thatJ udge Fai r chi l d had s ai d thatt her e w as no t i m et abl e fors w ear i ng i n J udge Si x, M r . V an D eel en s poke w i th J udge Fai r chi l d’ s as s i s t ant , M s . B ernhar dt , i n per s on on J anuary10, 2005. She r efus ed t o gi ve hi m anyi nform at i on aboutJ udge Si x and d e n ied h im a c c e ss to th e c o u rt a d m in istra to r. D u rin g th a t co n v e rsa tio n Ju d g e S ix happene d t o arr i ve fora meet i ng w i th J udge Fai r chi l d. M r . V an D eel en a n n o u n c e d h is in ten tio n to w a it fo r Ju d g e S ix to lea v e a n d a sk a b o u t h is av ail ab il ity . M s. B ern h ard t i n fo rm ed h im that u n less h e lef t she w o u ld ca ll co u rt s ecur i tyt o arr es thi m ores corthi m fr om the pr operty , and s he r efus ed t o t ake a m es s age forJ udge Fai r chi l d. W hen M r . V an D eel en ca l l ed M s . B ernhar dtthe nextday , he w as i nform ed thatJ udges Fai r chi l d and Si x had det erm i ned nott o gi ve hi m anyi nform at i on r egar di ng J udge Si x’ s avai l abi l i ty . M r . V an D eel en then i ndi cat ed thathe w as cons i der i ng a ci vi l - r i ght s act i on agai ns therand J udge Fai r chi l d, and he a s ked M s . B ernhar dtt o t el l J udge Fai r chi l d abouti t . T he nextdayJ udge Fai r chi l d s ent a l ett ert o M r . V an D eel en, s ay i ng: “D ue t o the conve r s at i on thatt ook pl ace t odaybetw een y ou and myadmi ni s tr at i ve as s i s t ant , al l comm uni cat i on betw een-4-

y o u a n d th e c o u rt p e rso n n e l in th e D o u g las C o u n tyD istric t C o u rt sh o u ld b e in wr i t i n g . ” R. , Do c . 1 9 , Ex . B. T hi r d, M r . V an D eel en w as deni ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s i n D ougl as C ountyC as e N o. 05L M 475. Shor t l yaft erJ udge Si x w as s w or n i n on February4, 2005, M r . V an D eel en w as named as a defendanti n thatcas e, w hi ch w as as s i gned t o J udge Si x. M r . V an D eel en fi l ed an a ns w erand count er cl ai m , butthe cl erk, at th e d ir e c tio n o f

J u d g e s F a ir c h ild a n d S ix , re f u s e d to s e rv e th e c o u n te rc la im . J udge Si x then r ecus ed hi m s el f, and the ca s e w as r eas s i gned t o J udge A l l en, w ho i s s ued an or derthatthe cl erk “s hal l noti s s ue s um m ons [s i c] atthe r eques tof M i chae l D . V an D eel en pendi ng the further[or der ] of thi s cour t , ” i d. , D oc. 19, E x . D. T h e A m en d ed C o m p lai n t al lege s tha t byd elay ing M r. V an D ee len’s l aw s ui t s and i m pedi ng hi s acc es s t o the court , the defendant s ’ conductvi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of fr eedom of as s embl y , fr eedom of as s oci at i on, fr eedom o f s p e e c h , d u e p ro c e s s , e q u a l p ro te c tio n o f th e la w , a n d e q u a l a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s . M r . V an D eel en al s o cl ai m s t hatM s . B ernhar dtdefa m ed hi m byfal s el yt el l i ng J udge Fai r chi l d thathe had thr eat ened the tw o of them w i th a ci vi l - r i ght s act i on a n d th a t Ju d g e F a irc h ild w a s n e g lig e n t in h is s u p e rv isio n o f M s. B e rn h a rd t. In h is pray er for r el i ef M r. V an D eel en asks fo r $200 , 00 0 in com pen sat orydam ages, $500, 000 i n puni t i ve damages , and dec l ar at i ons thatthe defendant s ’ conduct-5-

vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s and unl aw ful l yr et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forthe e x e rc is e o f

th o s e ri g h ts . H e d o e s n o t s e e k inju n c tiv e re lie f. T he defendant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of s ubj ect - m at t er j ur i s di ct i on and forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m on w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed. T hey a ls o file d a m o tio n to s ta yth e c a s e p e n d in g re s o lu tio n o f th e m o tio n to d is m is s . A ft erthe courtgr ant ed the mot i on t o s t ay , M r . V an D eel en moved t o fi l e a s uppl ement al compl ai nt . A m agi s tr at e j udge deni ed the mot i on t o s uppl ement beca us e of the s t ayor der . M r . V an D eel en di d notfi l e anyobj ect i ons t o the m agi s tr at e j udge’ s or der . T hi s m ot i on i s notpartof the r ecor d on appea l . T he di s tr i ctcourtt hen gr ant ed the defendant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s the § 1983 cl ai m on E l eventh A m endmentand j udi ci al - i m m uni tygr ounds , r efus ed t o cons i derM r . V an D eel en’ s r eques t s fordecl ar at oryr el i ef, and dec l i ned s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overthe s t at e- l aw cl ai m s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. DI S CU S S I ON W e n e e d n o t ad d re ss th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts a re sta te act or s ent i t l ed t o E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni tyt o the ext entthatM r . V an D eel en s eeks damages agai ns tt hem i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es . E ven cons trui ng h is p ro s e p le a d in g s a n d o th e r p a p e rs lib e ra lly, a s w e m u s t, s ee Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 (1 9 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F .2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 & n .3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), w e a re u n a b le to fin d a c h a lle n g e to th is ru lin g o n a p p e a l. A c c o rd in g ly, M r. V a n D e e le n h a s w a iv e d th is is s u e . See S tate Fa rm F i re & C as.-6-

C o. v. Mhoon , 3 1 F .3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 4 n .7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (fa ilu re to ra ise a n iss u e in an o p en ing ap p ell ate b ri ef resu lt s in w aive r of

that issue ). J udi ci al i m m uni tyr equi r es m or e di s cus s i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtrul ed that the defendant s ar e ent i t l ed t o j udi ci al i m m uni tyt o the ext entt hatM r . V an D eel en s eeks damages agai ns tthem i n t hei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es . W e r evi ew de novo the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o n th e g ro u n d o f ju d ic ia l im m u n ity. See G agan v. Nor t on , 35 F. 3d 1473, 1475 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . “[G ] ener al l y , a j udge i s i m m une fr om a s ui tform oneydamages . ” Mi r el es v. Waco , 502 U . S. 9, 9 ( 1991) ( per c u ria m ). T h e im m u n itya p p lies to ju d icia l ac ts, b u t n o t to “ a c ts th a t sim p ly happen t o have be en done byj udges . ” Fo rr e ste r v . Wh ite , 484 U . S. 219, 227 ( 1988) . “[T] he fa ct or s det erm i ni ng w hetheran ac tbya j udge i s a ‘ j udi ci al ’ one re la te to th e n a tu re o f th e a c t its e lf, i . e. , w h e th e r it is a f u n c tio n n o rm a lly p e rfo rm e d b ya ju d g e , a n d to th e e x p e c ta tio n s o f th e p a rt ie s , i . e. , w hethert hey deal tw i th the j udge i n hi s j udi ci al capa ci ty . ” St ump v. Sparkm an , 435 U . S. 349, 362 ( 1978) . “A j udge w i l l notbe depr i ved of i m m uni tybeca us e the ac t i on he t ook w as i n err or , w as done mal i ci ous l y , orw as i n exce s s of hi s author i ty. . . . ” Id. at356. T he al l eged c onductbythe defendantj udges s at i s fi es both fac t or s . I n eac h in s ta n c e , M r. V a n D e e le n w a s d e a lin g w ith th e ju d g e s in th e irju d ic ia l c a p a c itie s . A s forthe s peci fi c ac t i ons , “s chedul i ng a ca s e forhear i ng i s partof the r out i ne pr ocedur e i n anyl i t i gat ed mat t er . ” Thomps on v. D uke , 882 F. 2d 1180, 1184-7-

(7 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). T h u s, ju d icia l im m u n ityfo re c lo se s M r. V a n D e e len ’s c laim b a s e d o n J u d g e F a ir c h ild ’s a lle g e d fa ilu re to h o ld a h e a ri n g o n th e s c h e d u le d d a te . See i d. at1184- 85. Si m i l ar l y , the r ecus al byJ udge Si x w as a cus t om aryj udi ci al a c t a n d e n title d to im m u n ity, s ee B ar r et tv. Har r i ngt on , 130 F. 3d 246, 258 ( 6th C i r . 1997) ( “r ecus al i s undoubt edl yan ac tthatconce rns j udi ci al deci s i on- m aki ng”) , as w as J udge Fai r chi l d’ s r eas s i gnm entof one of M r . V an D e e le n ’s c a s e s to J u d g e S ix , s ee Mar t i nezv. Wi nner , 7 7 1 F . 2 d 4 2 4 , 4 3 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) (“ th e a ss ig n m e n t o f c a se s is . . . a ju d icia l f u n c tio n in th e se n se th a t it d ir e c tly c o n c e rn s th e c a s e -d e c id in g p ro c e s s ” ), j udgm entvacated as m oot , 800 F. 2d 230 ( 10th C i r . 1986) . I m m uni tyal s o ext ends t o J udge Fai r chi l d’ s l et t er a d m o n ish in g M r. V a n D e e len to c o n tac t co u rt p e rso n n e l o n lyin w riting b e c a u se it ar os e as partof a c hai n of eve nt s s eti n m ot i on bythe ca s e r eas s i gnm entand cul m i nat i ng i n w hatJ udge Fai r chi l d appar ent l ycons i der ed t o be M r . V an D e e len ’s th re a ten in g o r in a p p ro p ria te c o n tac t w ith M s. B e rn h a rd t. E ffo rts “ to prot ectthe int egri tyof the j ud i ci al decis i on -m aking process” are j ud i ci al act s. B a rr e tt , 1 3 0 F .3 d a t 2 5 9 (le tters w ritten b yju d g e to p ro se c u tin g a u th o rities in re s p o n s e to litig a n t’ s th re a te n in g re a c tio n to ju d ic ia l a c tio n s a re ju d ic ia l a c ts ). Fi nal l y , J udge A l l en’ s or dert o the cl erk of the D ougl as C ountyD i s tr i ctC our tnot to issue su m m o n ses o n b eh alf o f M r. V an D ee len u n ti l fu rth er o rde r of the c o u rt u n d o u b te d ly is a ju d ic ia l a c t. See Forr es t er , 4 8 4 U .S . at 2 2 7 (th e re is litt le-8-

c o n tro v e rsy i n a p p ly in g ju d icia l im m u n ityto th e “ p a ra d ig m a tic ju d icia l ac ts inv o lved in reso lving d ispu tes b etw ee n p arti es” ). A s fo r M s. B e rn h a rd t, “[ i]m m u n ityw h ich d e riv e s f ro m ju d icia l im m u n ity m ayext end t o per s ons othert han a j udge w her e per form ance of j udi ci al act s or act i vi tyas an off

i ci al ai de of the j udge i s i nvol ved, ” Henr i ks en v. B ent l ey , 6 4 4 F . 2 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). T h is i m m u n ityinclu d es a cti o n s b ya jud g e’s c le rk s , s e rv a n ts , a n d a g e n ts w h e n a s s is tin g in th e d is c h a rg e o f ju d ic ia l d u tie s . See Wigg i ns v. N. M. Stat e Sup. C t . C l erk , 6 6 4 F .2 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). M s . B ernhar dt ’ s i nt er act i ons w i th M r . V an D eel en w er e as an off i ci al ai de or a g e n t o f Ju d g e F a irc h ild a n d in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e d isc h a rg e o f h is ju d icia l d u ty t o as s i gn cas es . A ccor di ngl y , s he i s ent i t l ed t o der i vat i ve j udi ci al i m m uni tyfr om c l a i m s fo rd a m a g e s a g a i n s th e ri n h e ri n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty. M r . V an D eel en ar gues that“[a ] j udge i s notent i t l ed t o i m m uni tyw hen he retali ates a g ains t a l it igan t fo r en g ag ing in p rotec ted c o n d u ct. ” A p lt . O p en ing B r. at21. H e r el i es fors uppor ton B a rr e tt . B ut the rel evan taspectof thatcase conce rned a j udge’ s defa m at orys t at ement s t o the medi a, w hi ch w er e cons i der ed n o nju d ic ia l a c tio n s a n d th u s n o t p ro te c te d b yju d ic ia l im m u n ity. See 130 F. 3d at 260- 61. I n contr as t , a j udi ci al acti s pr ot ect ed eve n i f i t“w as i n err or , w as done m al i ci ous l y , orw as i n exce s s of [the j udge’ s ] author i ty . ” S t u mp , 435 U . S. at356.-9-

M r . V an D eel en al s o att empt s t o di s t i ngui s h the ca s e author i tyr el i ed on by the di s tr i ctcourt . W e nee d notr es pond, how ever , beca us e w e have r el i ed on o th e r c a s e s . N ext , w e addr es s M r . V an D eel en’ s cl ai m fordecl ar at or yr el i ef. J udi ci al im m u n ity g e n e ra lly d o e s n o t b a r d e c la ra to ry re lie f. See Schepp v . Fr em ont C ount y, W yo. , 900 F. 2d 1448, 1452 ( 10th C i r . 1990) . N everthel es s , ther e maybe o th e r p ro p e r g ro u n d s fo r d e n y in g su c h re lief. T h e d istric t co u rt e x e rc ise d its d iscreti o n to ref

u se to co n side r M r. V an D ee len’s re q u est fo r a d ec laratory j udgm ent . See Mhoon , 31 F. 3d at982- 83 ( di s cus s i ng di s cr et i onarypow er ) . O ur re v ie w is fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See i d. at983. A di s tr i ctcourts houl d cons i dera numberof fa ct or s w hen dec i di ng w hether to e n ter tain a re q u e st fo r d e c lar a to ryre lief: [1] w hethera dec l ar at oryact i on w oul d s et t l e the contr over s y ; [2] w hetheri tw oul d s erve a us eful purpos e i n cl ar i fy i ng the l egal r el at i ons ati s s ue; [3] w hetherthe dec l ar at oryr emedyi s bei ng us ed m er el yforthe purpos e of pr ocedur al fenc i ng ort o pr ovi de an a r ena fora r ace t o re s ju d ica ta ; [4] w hetherus e of a decl ar at oryact i on w oul d i ncr eas e fr i ct i on betw een ourfede r al and s t at e court s and im p ro p e rlye n c ro a c h u p o n sta te ju risd ictio n ; an d [ 5 ] w h e th e r th e re is an al t ernat i ve r emedyw hi ch i s bet t erorm or e effec t i ve. Id. (i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). T he d i stri ctcou rtcon cl ud ed thatbecau se M r . V an D eel en s eeks onl yr etr os pect i ve dec l ar at or yr el i ef, s uch r el i ef w oul d not affectthe pr es entorfutur e l egal r el at i ons of the part i es . T he courtal s o expl ai ned i t s deci s i on as bas ed on a r el uct ance “t o i ntrude i nt o the bas i c oper at i ons of the-10-

D o u g las C o u n tyC o u rt,” o b se rv in g th a t a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t w o u ld “undoubt edl yr i s k cr eat i ng fr i ct i on betw een [ the tw o court s ] bys crut i ni zi ng bas al day - t o- daycourtoper at i ons , ” R . , D oc. 41 at13- 14. A l though t he dec l ar at oryr el i ef s oughtbyM r . V an D eel en maynotbe pur el yr etr os pect i ve, as t her e r emai ns a pos s i bi l i tythatJ udge Fai r chi l d’ s l et t er a n d Ju d g e A llen ’s o rd e r m a yh a v e so m e e ffe c t o n M r. V a n D e e len ’s f u tu re a b ili ty t o l i t i gat e i n D ougl as C ountyD i s tr i ctC ourt , w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n . D e c lar a to ryre lief in th is a c tio n w o u ld p ro fo u n d ly encr oach on the pow erof the D ougl as C ountyD i s tr i ctC our tt o contr ol the l i t i gat i on conductof M r . V an D eel en. M or eover , i tappea r s thatM r . V an D eel en h as e ffec ti v e, pro b ab lysu p erior, r em ed ies av ail ab le, su ch as m o v ing in state co u rt forr el i ef f

r om anyl i m i t at i on he per cei ves i n J udge Fai r chi l d’ s l et t erorJ udge A l l en’ s or der , appea l i ng t o the K ans as courtof appe al s , ors eeki ng a w r i tof m a n d a m u s f

ro m th e K a n s a s S u p re m e C o u rt , s ee Al pha Med. C l i ni c v. A nders on , 128 P. 3d 364, 375 ( K an. 2006) ( r ecogni zi ng m andamus a s pos s i bl e pr ocedur al m e c h a n i s m t o c h a l l e n g e a n o r d e ro f a d i s tr i c tj u d g e i f

i t“ th r e a t e n s t o d e n y a l i t i ganta r i ghtorpr i vi l ege thatexi s t s as a mat t erof l aw and ther e w oul d be no rem ed yb yap p ea l”). T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o s t at ed thati t s di s pos i t i on w oul d be uncha nged eve n i f i tcons i der ed M r . V an D eel en’ s t ender ed s uppl ement al compl ai nt , w hi ch i s not partof the r ecor d butw hi ch, acc or di ng t o hi s appel l at e br i efs , al l eged thatJ udge-11-

A l l en had pr onounced thathear i ngs i n cas es i n w hi ch M r . V an D eel en i s orm i ght be a pl ai nt i ff w oul d notbe on the r ecor d. W e agr ee. A ccor di ngl y , w e nee d not a d d re ss M r. V a n D e e len ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to file a su p p lem e n tal c o m p lain t. F in a lly , M r. V a n D e e len h a s n o t ch a llen g e d th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to decl i ne s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overhi s s t at e- l aw cl ai m s . T her efor e, w e do not addr es s thatdeci s i on. T he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge