05-21-00431-CV
Tex. App.Apr 8, 2022Background:
- Bradley B. Miller sued Judge Andrea Plumlee and others, alleging statutory, constitutional, and tort claims arising from family-court proceedings (divorce and child-support enforcement) in the 330th District Court.
- Miller claimed Plumlee entered orders (including a November 17, 2016 modification removing Miller as managing conservator) and took other actions after Miller had attempted to remove the state case to federal court, rendering those actions void.
- Plumlee filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting judicial immunity (and sovereign immunity) and that Miller lacked standing; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed Miller’s claims against her.
- On appeal the Fifth District reviewed the plea de novo, focusing on whether Miller’s allegations fell outside judicial immunity exceptions (acts not judicial or taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction).
- The court held Plumlee’s actions were judicial acts taken in her judicial capacity and not in the complete absence of jurisdiction, so judicial immunity barred Miller’s suit; the trial court’s dismissal was affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-court jurisdiction halts during federal removal | Miller: removal divests state court; state actions during removal are void | Plumlee: state judge retains authority to perform judicial acts; immunity still applies | Held for Plumlee: removal does not negate immunity; inquiry is whether judge had power to perform act, not whether act was valid |
| Whether state-court proceedings during removal are void | Miller: orders entered after removal are void and lack force | Plumlee: even if orders were erroneous or voidable, judicial acts remain immune unless done in complete absence of jurisdiction | Held for Plumlee: alleged errors/voidness do not overcome judicial immunity |
| Whether Plumlee acted without jurisdiction so as to forfeit judicial immunity | Miller: Plumlee lacked jurisdiction to enter the November 17, 2016 order | Plumlee: as presiding district judge she had jurisdiction to enter parental-relations orders; immunity applies unless utterly without jurisdiction | Held for Plumlee: actions were within type of judicial acts she had authority to perform; not in complete absence of jurisdiction |
| Whether 330th Court lacks continuing jurisdiction because the order was fraudulent/invalid | Miller: order was fraudulent and issued outside any legitimate case so court lacks jurisdiction | Plumlee: allegations describe routine judicial acts in an existing case; fraud allegation insufficient to defeat immunity | Held for Plumlee: pleading shows ordinary judicial actions; immunity bars suit |
| Whether trial court erred in granting plea to the jurisdiction | Miller: dismissal improper because factual disputes about jurisdiction and voidness exist | Plumlee: dismissal proper because immunity deprives court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Held for Plumlee: plea properly granted and dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity bars suits for judicial acts unless actions were nonjudicial or taken in complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for evaluating a plea to the jurisdiction)
- Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2002) (judicial immunity deprives the court of jurisdiction)
- Bradt v. West, 892 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (factors for determining whether an act is judicial in nature)
- James v. Underwood, 438 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (immunity inquiry focuses on whether judge had jurisdiction to perform acts of that kind)
- Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 1995) (immunity depends on whether actions were obviously outside the judge’s power)
- Adams v. McIlhany, 764 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1985) (some subject-matter jurisdiction is sufficient for immunity purposes)
- Twilligear v. Carrell, 148 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (immunity covers acts done in error, maliciously, or in excess of authority)
- Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (describing the nature of a plea to the jurisdiction)
- Suarez v. City of Tex. City, 465 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2015) (de novo review of jurisdictional rulings)