Document: 502 U.S. 9 112 S.Ct. 286 116 L.Ed.2d Raymond MIRELESv.Howard WACO. No. 91-311. Oct. 21, 1991. Toni Rae Bruno, John A. Daly, David Link, Chase, Rotchford, Drukker & Bogust, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Hugh R. Manes, Manes Watson (Sam Rosewein, of counsel), respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 A long line this Court's precedents acknowledges that, generally, a judge is immune from suit money damages. See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 219, 108 538, 98 555 (1988); Cleavinger Saxner, 474 193, 106 496, 88 507 (1985); Dennis Sparks, 449 24, 101 183, 66 185 (1980); Supreme Court Virginia Consumers Union United States, Inc., 446 719, 100 1967, 64 641 Butz Economou, 438 478, 2894, 57 895 (1978); Stump Sparkman, 435 349, 1099, 55 331 Pierson Ray, 386 547, 87 1213, 18 288 (1967).1 Although unfairness and injustice to litigant may result on occasion, "it general principle the highest importance proper administration justice that judicial officer, in exercising authority vested him, shall be free act upon his own convictions, without apprehension personal consequences himself." Bradley Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 347, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872). 2 In case, respondent Howard Waco, Angeles County public defender, filed States District Central California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioner, Mireles, Superior Court, two police officers, damages arising an incident November 1989 at building Van Nuys, Cal. Waco alleged after he failed appear initial call Judge Mireles' morning calendar, judge, "angered by absence attorneys courtroom," ordered officer defendants "to forcibly with excessive force seize bring plaintiff into courtroom." App. Pet. Cert. B-3, ¶ 7(a). The officers allegedly "by means unreasonable violence seize[d] remove[d] him backwards" another courtroom where was waiting appear, cursed called "vulgar offensive names," then "without necessity slammed" through doors swinging gates courtroom. Id., B-4, 7(c). it alleged, "knowingly deliberately approved ratified each aforesaid acts" officers. Ibid. demanded punitive B-5 B-6. 3 Mireles moved dismiss complaint as pursuant Civil Rules 12(b)(1) (6), failure state claim which relief could granted. dismissed entered final judgment Rule 54(b), grounds "complete immunity." D-2. On Waco's appeal, Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed judgment. Baltad, 934 F.2d 214 (1991). court determined not because actions were taken capacity. It opined would have been acting capacity if had "merely directed directing them use force." 216. But "[i]f requested authorized force, capacity." 4 Taking allegations true, we do motion dismiss, grant petition certiorari summarily reverse. 5 Like other forms official immunity, immunity suit, just ultimate assessment Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 526, 105 2806, 2815, 86 411 (1985). Accordingly, overcome bad faith or malice, existence ordinarily cannot resolved engaging discovery eventual trial. U.S., 554, S.Ct., 1218 ("[I]mmunity applies even when accused maliciously corruptly"). See also Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 815-819, 102 2727, 2736-2739, 73 396 (1982) (allegations malice are insufficient qualified immunity). 6 Rather, our cases make clear only sets circumstances. First, liability nonjudicial actions, i.e., judge's 227-229, 544-545; 360, 1106. Second, though nature, complete all jurisdiction. 356-357, 1104-1105; Wall., 351. 7 We conclude erred ruling This made "whether 'judicial' one relate[s] nature itself, whether function normally performed expectations parties, they dealt 362, 1108. 544-545. direction person who courthouse before judge. generally Cal.Civ.Proc.Code Ann. §§ 128, 177, 187 (West 1982 Supp.1991) (setting forth broad powers judges conduct proceedings).2 purposes pending dealing 8 Of course, carry out order "function judge." particular question scrutinized, any mistake excess become "nonjudicial" act, improper erroneous said If anything, "will deprived action took error . authority." 356, 1105. 227, 544 (a "does less virtue allegation corruption motive"). language indicates, relevant inquiry "nature" "function" "act itself." words, look act's relation case counsel court. Nor does fact carried somehow transform "judicial" "executive" character. As instructs, "the performed, identity actor it, inform[s] analysis." 229, 545. executive no more character than issuance warrant search home. Burns Reed, 500 ----, 111 1934, 1941, 114 547 (1991) ("[T]he unquestionably act"). 10 Because concluded did capacity, reach second part inquiry: little trouble concluding not. officers' acted authority. such action—taken very aid jurisdiction over matter him—cannot 11 granted, reversed. 12 so ordered. Justice STEVENS, dissenting. Judicial attaches undertaken 544-545, (1988). determining "judicial," consider 1108, (1978).1 14 Respondent alleges petitioner bring" petitioner's acknowledges, ordering "not 'function judge.' " Ante, (quoting 1108). nevertheless finds applicable action's "relation 13. 15 Accepting must reviewing issued commands He courtroom, commit battery. first capacity; clearly Ordering battery has interval minute separated orders, undeniable attach latter order. both occurred same communication enlarge immunity. 16 I respectfully dissent. 17 SCALIA, whom KENNEDY joins, "A summary reversal rare exceptional disposition, 'usually reserved situations law well settled stable, facts dispute, decision below error.' Stern, Gressman Shapiro, Practice 281 (6th ed. 1986) Schweiker Hansen, 450 785, 791, 1468, 1472, 67 685 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting)). STEVENS' dissent amply demonstrates, here is, minimum, error. 19 frankly am unsure disposition favored correct; but sure decide should briefing argument. my view, all; factual situation presents extraordinary expenditure time. denied writ certiorari. however, recognized absolutely criminal liability, Ex Parte Virginia, 339, 348-349, 25 676 (1880), prospective injunctive relief, Pulliam Allen, 466 522, 536-543, 104 1970, 1977-1982, 80 565 (1983), attorney's fees statute, id., 543-544, 1981-1982. Civ.Proc.Code 128 provides pertinent part: "Every power following: (5) To control furtherance justice, its ministerial persons manner connected proceeding every pertaining thereto." Ligda Solano County, Cal.App.3d 811, 826, 85 Cal.Rptr. 744, 753 (1970) (public defender "ministerial officer" "all proceeding" within meaning assist defendant). 736-737, 1977, (1980) (judge entitled enforcement capacity); cf. 520-524, 2812-2814, (1985) (Attorney General performing "national security," rather prosecutorial, function). Moreover, 'clear jurisdiction.' 357, 1105 351, (1872)).

Category: 1