Document: 435 U.S. 349 98 S.Ct. 1099 55 L.Ed.2d 331 Harold D. STUMP et al., Petitioners,v.Linda Kay SPARKMAN and Leo Sparkman. No. 76-1750. Argued Jan. 10, 1978. Decided March 28, Rehearing Denied June 5, See 436 951, 2862. Syllabus A mother filed a petition in affidavit form an Indiana Circuit Court, court of general jurisdiction under statute, for authority to have her "somewhat retarded" 15-year-old daughter (a respondent here) sterilized, petitioner Judge approved the same day ex parte proceeding without hearing notice or appointment guardian ad litem. The operation was performed shortly thereafter, having been told that she appendix removed. About two years later married, inability become pregnant led discover had sterilized. As result husband (also suit Federal District Court pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against mother, mother's attorney, Judge, doctors who assisted sterilization, hospital where it performed, seeking damages alleged violation constitutional rights. Holding claims required showing state action only Judge's approval sterilization petition, held no federal would lie any defendants because agent, absolutely immune from doctrine judicial immunity. Appeals reversed, holding "crucial issue" whether acted within his jurisdiction, he not, accordingly not liability, event forfeited immunity "because failure comply with elementary principles procedural due process." Held: law vested power entertain act upon is, therefore, liability even if error. Pp. 355-364. (a) judge will be deprived took error, done maliciously, excess authority, but rather subject when has "clear absence all jurisdiction," Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351, 20 L.Ed. 646. 355-357. (b) Here there jurisdiction" consider petition. That statute granting broad appearing neither by nor case such circumscribed foreclose consideration 357-358. (c) Because is errors may committed lack specific authorizing question rendered him liable consequences actions. 358-360. (d) factors determining "judicial" relate nature itself (whether function normally judge) expectation parties they dealt capacity), here both these elements indicate act, though proceeded informality. 360-363. (e) Disagreement taken does justify depriving immunity, thus fact this tragic ensued judge's deprive immunity; moreover, issue before controversial one, as here, more reason should able fear suit. 363-364. 552 F.2d 172, reversed remanded. George E. Fruechtenicht, Fort Wayne, Ind., petitioners. Richard H. Finley, Kendallville, respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 This requires us scope sued 1983. 2 * relevant facts underlying respondents' are dispute. On July 9, 1971, Ora Spitler McFarlin, Linda Sparkman, presented Stump DeKalb County, document captioned "Petition To Have Tubal Ligation Performed Minor Indemnity Agreement." drafted here. In Mrs. McFarlin stated oath 15 age retarded," although attended public school promoted each year class. further associating "older youth young men" stayed out overnight them on several occasions. behavior Linda's mental capabilities, daughter's best interest underwent tubal ligation order "to prevent unfortunate circumstances . ." also undertook indemnify hold harmless Dr. John Hines, perform operation, Memorial Hospital, take place, causes might arise performance ligation.1 3 day. He affixed signature "Judge, Court," statement did "hereby approve above Petition behalf minor daughter, Spitler, said covenanting agreeing keep indemnified Hines Hospital matters arising therefrom." 4 15, entered following her. She released days later, unaware true surgery. 5 Approximately after married Her sterilized during 1971 operation. revelation, Sparkmans United States Northern Stump, ligation, Hospital. Respondents sought Sparkman's rights;2 asserted were pendent assault battery, medical malpractice, loss potential fatherhood. 6 Ruling defendants' various motions dismiss complaint, concluded respondents complaint acting McFarlin. private theory conspired bring about allegedly unconstitutional acts. however, "whether Stump's 'approval' retrospect appear premised erroneous view law, surely thereon." Sparkman Civ. F 75-129 (ND May 13, 1976). Accordingly, 646 (1872), entitled immunity.3 7 appeal, Seventh judgment Court,4 concluding not. F.2d, at 174. controlling authorities. Id., 176. 8 We granted certiorari, 434 815, 51, 54 70 (1977), correctness ruling. reverse. II 9 governing principle well established questioned parties. early 1872, recognized "a highest importance proper administration justice officer, exercising him, [should] free own convictions, apprehension personal himself." supra, 347.5 For "judges courts superior civil actions their acts, acts maliciously corruptly."6 Wall., 351. Later we applicable suits Civil Rights Act 1871, 1983, legislative record gave indication Congress intended abolish long-established principle. Pierson Ray, 386 547, 87 1213, 18 288 (1967). 10 correctly necessary inquiry defendant time challenged over matter him. "some most difficult embarrassing questions which officer called determine ," Bradley, 352, must construed broadly judge. authority; rather, jurisdiction."7 11 cannot agree County "original exclusive cases equity whatsoever settlement estates guardianships, appellate conferred "all other causes, proceedings thereof some court, board officer." Ind.Code 33-4-4-3 (1975).8 indeed jurisdictional grant; yet sterilization. 12 so doing, noted statutes provided institutionalized persons certain circumstances, see §§ 16-13-13-1 through 16-13-13-4 (1973), otherwise contained express ligations. It statutory grant circuit itemize types those hear hence expressly mention petitions parents minor. But our view, significant prohibiting considering type Stump. custody State warrant inference parents, particularly "consent contract care treatment [the minor] including surgery." 16-8-4-2 (1973). McFarlin's authorization minor's support could found common Indiana, relying particular Appeals' intervening decision A. L. G. R. H., 163 Ind.App. 636, 325 N.E.2d 501 (1975). parent common-law right child "sincerely believe child's adulthood benefit 638, N.E.2d, 502. opinion, speaks rights consent parent. Although err parent's child, Indeed, clear implication that, deny its merits than jurisdiction. 14 Perhaps realizing foreclosed scheme, still "an illegitimate exercise misconceives flawed commission grave errors. made point 357, stated: "[T]his manner court's] exercised, however affected validity make less act; render answer plaintiff, whatever conclude Appeals, employing unduly restrictive jurisdictio , erred presides one 16 argue constitute act. capacity immune, say. do disagree characterize nonjudicial 17 themselves pleadings "clothed state" "he county judge." Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Memorandum Filed Behalf Support Motion Dismiss 75-129, p. 6. They nevertheless now given docket number, placed file clerk's office, minor, hearing, occasion consider, purposes doctrine, attributes previously rejected argument, somewhat similar raised formality involved Illinois Supreme Court's petitioner's application admission bar prevented being "judicial proceeding" presenting controversy reviewed re Summers, 561, 65 1307, 89 1795 (1945). Of significance present case, Summers following: "The show process issued appearance made. While entry Clerk file, docket, roll, cognizance passed validated presiding 567, S.Ct., 1311. it, presented. 19 Similarly, Fifth district "at altercation [giving rise suit] Brown robes, courtroom itself, violated and/or requirements regarding contempt citations." McAlester Brown, 469 1280, 1282 (1972).9 Among relied deciding "the confrontation arose directly immediately visit official capacity." Ibid.10 demonstrate i. e., judge, expectations parties, capacity. Here, act.11 judges infrequently relating affairs minors, example, settle claim. Furthermore, admitted, "acting 360. infer served position advice counsel, submitted approval. find merit argument informality absolute immunity.12 Both seem suggest actions, immune. "[t]here purported character empowered take," 176, "so unfair" totally devoid concern interests well-being girl involved" disqualify 18. Despite unfairness litigants sometimes results, thought [, allows] [to] 347. pointed : 21 "Controversies involving merely great pecuniary interests, liberty consequently exciting deepest feelings, constantly determined courts, conflict evidence doubt govern decision. class impose severest labor, often create mind painful sense responsibility." 348. 22 cases, remanded consistent opinion.13 23 ordered. 24 BRENNAN part case. 25 STEWART, whom MARSHALL POWELL join, dissenting. 26 monetary "for corruptly." way diminished Pierso 288. limited acts," I think what beyond pale anything sensibly 27 Neither Fisher Ray claim conduct either discuss meaning term.1 Yet proposition extends acts" emphasized seven times Field's case.2 Cf. Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 430, 96 984, 995, 47 128. And limitations inherent concept realistic all, then approving protected 28 finds reasons First, says, Second, With respect, first grounds factually untrue second legally unsound. 29 When says "normally judge," me means "normally" asked surgical generally, wish whichever taken, inaccurate. elsewhere country, authorized arrange child. Ann. decides call physician sick arranges surgeon remove tonsils, otherwise, need seek judge.3 hand, procedures people institutionalized. foradministrative superintendent hospital. Only evidentiary review court. (1973).4 30 sum, ever since. 31 "his capacity" test understood, think, demonstrably 32 can safely assumed correct came Judge. false illusions hardly convert response into short, lock attic simply 33 If, depends capacity, equally invalid. Court." say-so. free, like loose cannon, inflict indiscriminate damage whenever announces capacity.5 34 If standard adopted invalid, measure act? Contrary implications my conclusion based informality, "in robes," itself." Ante, 361. reach litem." 35 seems me, content Those accurately summarized U.S., 554, 1218: 36 "[I]t 'is public, whose functions independence consequences'. duty decide brought arouse intense feelings litigants. His corrected ap eal, unsatisfied hound litigation charging malice corruption. Imposing burden contribute principled fearless decisionmaking intimidation." 37 Not considerations There "case," otherwise. appeal. pretext decision-making. total normal convinces complained 38 petitioners' brief aura deism surrounds bench essential maintenance respect institution." Though rhetoric overblown, quarrel it. be, exonerating lawless place intimidation serve deter recurrence, interest.6 39 POWELL, 40 join emphasize central feature case—Judge preclusion possibility vindication system. 41 designed independent judiciary, expense legitimate individual grievances. 349; accord, 1217, Brady accepted costs aggrieved individuals system protecting rights: "Against [judges'] irregular action, motives proceeding, numerous remedies, remedies must, resort." 354. 43 Underlying then, notion sacrificed degree achievement greater good deriving completely exist alternative forums methods vindicating rights.1 44 precludes resort available, assumption inoperative. 1218.2 STEWART points out, ante, 369, unjudicial insured appeal." complete "numerous remedies" parties." 45 "judicial," full text read follows: "STATE OF INDIANA) ss: COUNTY DEKALB) "PETITION TO HAVE TUBAL LIGATION PERFORMED ON MINOR AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT "Ora duly sworn states natural fifteen (15) born January 24, 1956 resides 108 Iowa Street, Auburn, Indiana. "Affiant mentality considered retarded attending schools Central School System along children level capabilities intelligence. Further, affiant problems home leaving occasions associate older men incidents aware until occurred. believes occur since impossible maintain control continuous observation activities every "Said hereby [sic] covenant idemnify idemnified requesting whereas performing Ligation. "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, affiant, hereunto subscribed name 9th July, 1971. "/s/ ORA SPITLER MCFARLIN Petitioner "Subscribed WARREN SUNDAY Warren Sunday Notary Public "My expires 4, 1975. "I, /s/ HAROLD "Dated 1971" summary Sparkmans: "Whether laid section 1331 1343(3) via 1985, plaintiffs' recovery rest Plaintiffs urge guarantees: "1. arbitrary clause Fourteenth Amendment; "2. denied safeguards "3. permitted promulgation standards; "4. invasion privacy; "5. procreate; "6. cruel unusual punishment; "7. use punishment retardation self-discipline guarantees; "8. failed follow statutes, law; "9. equal protection clause, differential accorded account sex, marital status, low motion dismissed remaining subject-matter 172 (CA7 1977). Even earlier, Randall Brigham, 523, 285 (1869), responsible injurious much deserve condemnation, unless perhaps palpably judges, 537. reconsidered earlier qualifying words used o "A distinction observed between subject-matter. Where clearly exercised usurped want known excuse permissible. invested holds, extent shall generally determination particulars judgments depend." 351-352. illustrated examples: probate wills estates, try criminal action; convict nonexistent crime, 352. Code (1975) "Jurisdiction.—Said original whatsoever, divorce, except concurrent justices peace. decedents' guardianships: Provided, counties organized, nothing laws, plaintiffs gone courthouse son tried give fresh set clothes. went ordered deputy arrest jail Several months plaintiff nunc pro tunc. Other Courts different situations, rely Ninth Circuit, peace accused forcibly removing man physically assaulting Gregory Thompson, 500 59 (1974). courtroom, actual eviction someone physical force, task sheriff bailiff, "simply nature." 64. Sixth Lynch Johnson, 420 818 (1970), service administrative powers dissent, complains inaccurate nowhere appears parents' decisions sterilizations particular. course, makes assertion. Rather, "function" taking action" perform. dissent effort Nor dispute minors. lifetime judging, kind, entertaining kind performs. untenable engaging expected courts. STEWART'S post, suggests considers "normal proceeding." These include opportunity "princip ed decisionmaking." did; instituted sufficiently "case" erroneously. contending judicial. parte. search warrants manner, instituted, issuance destroy offer proof issuing erroneously Compare Kermit Constr. Corp. Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceno, 547 (CA1 1976), Guedry Ford, 431 660 (CA5 1970). lawyer disbarred; guilty trial. 347, 348, 349, 354, 357. 1975 authorize 501. conclusion, 359, least McFarlin's. decision, "filed declaratory declaration parent-child relationship sterilized." Ind.App., 636-637, limitation sanctioned contemplated procedure "approval" followed offers instructive contrast here: "At et, thank counsel excellent efforts representing seriously concerned providing litem defense interest." repealed 1974. Believing inquire matter." "Jurisdiction" coat many colors. note finding dangerously criteria. criteria "jurisdiction proceedings," specifically did. How act" affect "under color of" Amendment pursued Handler & Klein, Defense Privilege Defamation Suits Against Government Executive Officials, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 44, 53-55 (1960); Jaffe, Governments Officers: Damage Actions, 77 209, 233-235 (1963); Note, Immunity From Liability Damages: Reevaluation Barr Maeto, Colum.L.Rev. 625, 647 (1977). open correction

Category: 1