Opinion ID: 2406015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dismissal of the claim against jacquetta alexander.

Text: The McCrorys contend that the trial court erred in dismissing the claim against circuit court clerk Jacquetta Alexander in that it stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). We hold otherwise. A county court clerk can be sued for damages in a § 1983 suit. See Scott v. Dixon, 720 F.2d 1542 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 832, 105 S.Ct. 122, 83 L.Ed.2d 64 (1984). However, a clerk may have either absolute or qualified immunity for acts done in his or her official capacity. Absolute immunity bars a suit at the outset and frees the defendant official of any obligation to justify his actions, while qualified immunity is in the nature of an affirmative defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in his position should have known. Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100, 104 S.Ct. 1593, 80 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984). See also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Clerks who perform ministerial functions, such as filing orders and notifying parties, are entitled only to qualified good faith immunity. Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 F.2d 852 (10th Cir.1981). A court clerk who performs a judicial function, such as issuing warrants, enjoys absolute immunity in a § 1983 suit. Scott, supra . See also Sharma v. Stevas, 790 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir.1986). Having determined above that a judge, not a clerk, should issue writs of attachments, it follows that the act of issuing such writs is a judicial function. See Scott, supra . Thus, Jacquetta Alexander was entitled to absolute judicial immunity. The trial court properly dismissed the claim against her.