Allen "F" Calton v. Steve Schiller
06-15-00062-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Dec 15, 2015Background
- Appellant Allen Calton (pro se) sued several Texas judges (Keller, Livingston, Cayce, Gill, Sturns) seeking injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging appellate-record defects harmed his ability to challenge a 2004–2005 conviction.
- Defendants were sued in their official capacities; some (Cayce, Gill) were former judges and no longer held the positions Calton sought to command.
- The district court dismissed the claims against the judges on grounds of judicial and sovereign immunity and lack of jurisdiction; co-defendant court reporter Schiller was dismissed separately under Chapter 14.
- Calton attempted to file a Ninth Amended Complaint after dismissal; the trial court denied leave to amend.
- The judges argue Calton seeks retrospective relief that would impermissibly invalidate or second-guess prior judicial decisions and that prospective relief is unavailable because the requested orders (e.g., waiving appellate deadlines, appointing counsel, ordering out‑of‑time appeals) are beyond the district court’s power and/or ineffectual against former judges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of leave to file Ninth Amended Complaint was an abuse of discretion | Calton contends he timely tendered the Ninth Amended Complaint and that it should have been accepted (as to Schiller) | Judges note amendment was filed a year after dismissal, did not cure immunity defects, and Calton fails to brief the issue against them | Denial not shown to be abuse; appellate waiver for unbriefed arguments applies |
| Whether judicial immunity bars Calton’s claims for injunctive relief | Calton relies on Pulliam to argue judicial immunity does not bar prospective equitable relief against judges | Judges argue claims seek relief tied to prior judicial acts, are mostly retrospective or ineffectual (some defendants are former judges), and thus barred by judicial immunity and lack of jurisdiction | Claims dismissed: immunity and absence of justiciable controversy bar relief |
| Whether district court had authority to grant requested equitable relief (e.g., waive appellate rules, order out‑of‑time appeal, appoint counsel) | Calton seeks orders requiring appellate process changes and appointment of counsel to remedy alleged record defects | Judges argue district court cannot act as a super‑appellate court to alter appellate procedures or direct other courts/majorities of judges; such relief is non‑justiciable or ineffectual | |
| Whether lack of justiciable controversy / standing precludes equitable relief | Calton asserts ongoing injury from incomplete appellate record justifying injunctive relief | Judges contend alleged past harms do not create imminent, irreparable injury, and suit requests advisory relief beyond district court’s jurisdiction | Dismissal affirmed for lack of justiciable controversy; injunctive relief not supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1984) (prospective injunctive relief against judges is not categorically barred but is limited by equitable requirements)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (broad scope of judicial immunity for judicial acts)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (judicial immunity protects judges for acts within jurisdiction even if erroneous)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (civil claims implying conviction invalidity require prior reversal or invalidation)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete, imminent injury and redressability)
- Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001) (limitations on suits that seek to control or remedy actions of judges/former officials)
- Twilligear v. Carrell, 148 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (Texas law recognizing judicial immunity for judicial acts)