Opinion ID: 1736422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mooneyham's Malicious-Prosecution and Tortious-Interference Claims

Text: Mooneyham's malicious-prosecution and tortious-interference claims both originate from Mooneyham's allegation that the Board's action against him was wrongful. Mooneyham essentially claims that the Board wrongly proceeded against him. He also alleges that the Board later defamed him by making its subsequent adjudication a matter of public record. The Board members contend, however, that their actions are protected by quasi-judicial immunity. Quasi-judicial immunity is akin to judicial immunity, although it is somewhat narrower in scope. See Ex parte Phelps, 612 So.2d 1177, 1181 (Ala.1992) (`Quasi-judicial immunity is more limited than the immunity afforded to judges and extends only to those acts committed within the scope of the actor's jurisdiction and with the authorization of law.') (quoting Carden v. Hand, 407 F.Supp. 451, 482 (S.D.Ala.1975)). With respect to judicial immunity, this Court has said: `Whenever the state confers judicial powers upon an individual, it confers therewith full immunity from private suits. In effect, the State says to the officer, that these duties are confided to his judgment; that he is to exercise his judgment fully, freely, and without favor, and he may exercise it without fear; that the duties concern individuals, but they concern more especially the welfare of the State, and the peace and happiness of society; that if he shall fail in a faithful discharge of them, he shall be called to account as a criminal; but that in order that he may not be annoyed, disturbed, and impeded in the performance of these high functions, a dissatisfied individual shall not be suffered to call in question his official action in a suit for damages.'Cooley on Torts, 408. Coleman v. Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 329, 21 So. 449, 450 (1896). The policy supporting quasi-judicial immunity is the same. As the United States Supreme Court said in Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), Judges have absolute immunity not because of their particular location within the Government but because of the special nature of their responsibilities. 438 U.S. at 511, 98 S.Ct. 2894. Quasi-judicial immunity, when applicable, is absolute. Ex parte Colagross, 674 So.2d 1315, 1316 (Ala.1996); accord Butz, 438 U.S. at 514, 98 S.Ct. 2894 (holding that administrative officials performing adjudicatory functions are entitled to absolute immunity for official acts). Mooneyham contends that the members of the Board are entitled to the same immunity to which most administrative officials are generally entitled, that is, discretionary immunity of the character discussed in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000), and not quasi-judicial immunity. We disagree. The Supreme Court, in Butz v. Economou, supra, addressed this issue with respect to an administrative tribunal within the United States Department of Agriculture. The tribunal had issued an administrative complaint alleging that Arthur Economou, a registered merchant, had intentionally failed to maintain minimal financial requirements prescribed by Department of Agriculture regulations. The chief hearing examiner of the Department sustained the complaint. The examiner's decision was then affirmed by the judicial officer of the Department, who was entrusted by the Secretary of Agriculture with decisional authority in enforcement proceedings. Economou tried unsuccessfully in a federal district court to enjoin the administrative proceedings. After the Department had issued its decision, Economou sued the chief hearing examiner, the judicial officer, and several officials associated with the prosecution of the complaint against him, seeking damages. He alleged that the defendants had made the administrative complaint available to third parties, without providing them his answer, and that the defendants had issued a press release reporting that he had committed a violation of Department regulations. The defendants responded to these allegations with claims of quasi-judicial immunity. The district court dismissed the case. See 438 U.S. at 480, 98 S.Ct. 2894. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed as to the district court's holding that the defendants were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity; the Court of Appeals held that the Department officials were entitled only to discretionary immunity. See 438 U.S. at 480, 98 S.Ct. 2894. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that administrative officials performing duties that are characteristic of the judicial process are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Butz, 438 U.S. at 512-13, 98 S.Ct. 2894. We conclude that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Butz v. Economou applies in the present case, where Board members serving as administrative officials performed a judicial functionthe adjudication of a complaint. Therefore, any claims against the Board members arising out of that proceeding are barred by quasi-judicial immunity.