Firnist Alexander v. Kern Reese
702 F. App'x 223
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alexander initiated an interdiction proceeding for his aunt, Gwendolyn Walker; after her death he filed a succession to be named administrator. The succession was transferred to Judge Kern Reese under Louisiana rules because Reese had presided over the earlier interdiction.
- Judge Reese appointed T. Collette White as provisional administrator; Corey Pierce was White’s counsel. White deposited succession funds at First NBC Bank; Ken LeDoux was the bank’s lawyer.
- Alexander repeatedly moved to remove White and to be appointed administrator; hearings and continuances were held. He alleged fraud by White (false accounting, false petitions) and biased, wrongful actions by Reese.
- Alexander filed a pro se federal suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claiming a conspiracy to deprive him of constitutional rights and sought to have succession funds deposited in the federal court registry. The district court dismissed the suit and denied the registry request; it also denied Alexander’s motion to strike Pierce’s motion to dismiss as untimely.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo, considered judicial immunity for Judge Reese, whether private parties acted under color of state law, federal court power over estate property, and whether Pierce was properly served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Reese is liable under § 1983 (judicial immunity) | Reese acted in bad faith, biased, and lacked jurisdiction after transfer, so not immune | Reese’s actions were judicial and he had at least some subject-matter jurisdiction; thus immune | Judge Reese immune: actions were judicial in nature and court had sufficient jurisdiction for immunity |
| Whether White, Pierce, First NBC, and LeDoux are liable under § 1983 | These private actors conspired with the judge to deprive Alexander of constitutional rights | Dismiss because Judge Reese immune (implicit defense) and insufficient allegations tying private actors to constitutional deprivation | Claims against private defendants cannot be dismissed solely due to judge’s immunity, but Alexander failed to plead facts showing deprivation of federal rights; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether federal court should order succession funds deposited into federal registry | Federal court should protect Alexander’s property by taking custody of funds | Federal courts cannot interfere with state probate or assume control of property in state court custody | Denied: federal court lacked jurisdiction to assume control over estate funds in state court custody |
| Whether Pierce’s pleadings were untimely (service) | Pierce failed to timely answer; pleadings should be struck | Pierce was never properly served; the 21-day clock never ran, so motion to dismiss was timely | District court did not abuse discretion: service by mail to Pierce was improper under Rule 4(e) and Louisiana law, so pleadings were timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity protects judges from money damages except for nonjudicial acts or acts in absence of jurisdiction)
- Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121 (5th Cir. 1993) (factors for determining whether an act is judicial and sufficiency of subject-matter jurisdiction for immunity)
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) (private parties who conspire with state officials act under color of state law for § 1983)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standard for pleading conspiracy and plausibility)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (elements of a § 1983 claim — action under color of state law and deprivation of federal rights)
- Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (1946) (federal courts may not interfere with state probate or take control of estate property)
- Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for motions to strike)