Opinion ID: 77136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Judicial Immunity Under Federal Law

Text: 6 Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the `clear absence of all jurisdiction.' Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). This immunity applies even when the judge's acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or her jurisdiction. Id. Whether a judge's actions were made while acting in his judicial capacity depends on whether: (1) the act complained of constituted a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge's chambers or in open court; (3) the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and (4) the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity. Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.1983). 7 We reject, from the outset, the use of § 1983 as a device for collateral review of state court judgments. 3 Cf. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). As § 1983 is applied to this case, therefore, we do not ask whether civil incarceration was appropriate. The inquiry is whether ordering civil incarceration is a judicial activity. Similarly, we do not review whether the substance of a question at oral argument was improper, but rather, whether questions in oral argument are judicial acts. Sibley had his opportunity to contest the propriety of these judges' merits decisions in the appellate process. See Sibley v. Sibley, 833 So.2d 847 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002), review denied, 854 So.2d 660 (Fla.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1109, 124 S.Ct. 1074, 157 L.Ed.2d 895 (2004). 8 1. Federal Claims Against the State Trial Judge 9 With regard to Sibley's § 1983 claims against Judge Lando, the district court properly concluded that Judge Lando had judicial immunity from Sibley's claims, because, by issuing the writ of bodily attachment, Judge Lando was committing a judicial act. See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239; see also Pope v. Quattelbaum, 884 So.2d 301, 301 (Fla.App. Dist.Ct.2004) (discussing and applying Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(e)'s writ of bodily attachment provision). The jurisdictional inquiry is a state law question and is discussed in section B of this opinion regarding state law immunity. Because we conclude in that section that there was no clear absence of jurisdiction and because Judge Lando was acting in her judicial capacity, the § 1983 claims against Judge Lando were properly dismissed. 10 2. Federal Claims Against the State Appellate Judges 11 Sibley challenges Judge Schwartz's question at oral argument regarding the source of funds used on appeal and the participation of both judges in an unfavorable decision, because the opinion used allegedly fabricated evidence. Sibley does not contest the jurisdiction of the appellate court to hear his case and only contends that the actions by the judges were neither judicial nor appellate in nature. 4 Because asking questions at oral arguments and issuing a decision in the form of a written opinion are judicial actions and because the judges were not acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, Judges Schwartz and Goderich are entitled to judicial immunity from Sibley's claims. 5 Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239.