Bush v. Batchelder, 1:14-cv-00943

Background

Plaintiff Douglas Phillip Bush, a jail inmate, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and four federal judges (Judges Batchelder, Cole, Guy, and Forester) challenging dispositions in two Sixth Circuit matters (Case Nos. 10-2566 and 13-1818) relating to attempts to relitigate a 2001 Michigan conviction via Rule 60(b) and successive habeas filings.
Bush alleged due process, equal protection, denial of access to courts, and retaliation, and sought monetary damages and equitable relief.
The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) (IFP prisoner-screening standards) to determine frivolousness and failure to state a claim.
The magistrate judge construed the challenged acts as judicial rulings denying Bush’s motions and taking actions within the judges’ official duties.
The court concluded sovereign immunity barred suit against the Sixth Circuit as an entity and that the individual judges were protected by absolute judicial immunity because their acts were judicial and within subject-matter jurisdiction.
Recommendation: dismiss the complaint with prejudice and deny in forma pauperis appeal as not taken in good faith.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Sixth Circuit (as an entity) can be sued under Bivens for constitutional violations	Bush contended the Court of Appeals violated his constitutional rights by refusing to properly review his motions	Federal courts/defendants asserted sovereign immunity bars Bivens claims against the United States or federal courts	Held: Dismissed — sovereign immunity precludes suing the court as a defendant
Whether individual federal judges are liable for damages for adverse judicial rulings	Bush alleged due process, equal protection, denial of access, and retaliation based on their rulings	Judges invoked absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity	Held: Dismissed — absolute judicial immunity applies because acts were judicial and court had subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether the complaint states a plausible claim under Iqbal/Twombly to survive screening	Bush urged the court to assess his factual allegations and grant relief	Court applied Iqbal/Twombly screening standards and found allegations conclusory and barred by immunity	Held: Dismissed for failure to state a claim under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1)
Whether judicial immunity is overcome by allegations of bad faith, malice, or excess of authority	Bush argued misconduct/retaliation and inadequate review by judges	Defendants argued immunity is not defeated by allegations of bad faith or malice absent complete absence of jurisdiction or nonjudicial acts	Held: Dismissed — allegations of malice or error do not overcome immunity absent lack of jurisdiction or nonjudicial conduct

Key Cases Cited

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (describing dismissal standards for IFP frivolous claims)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness standard and dismissal of baseless claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (scope of judicial immunity; nonjudicial acts and lack of jurisdiction exceptions)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (definition and purpose of judicial acts for immunity analysis)
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (policy justification for judicial immunity)
Barnes v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111 (Sixth Circuit precedent on judicial immunity)
Bright v. Gallia County, 753 F.3d 639 (application of judicial immunity in the Sixth Circuit)
Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (frivolousness and lack of arguable factual or legal basis)