307 So.3d 234
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Glenn Damond filed suit on October 16, 2018 against retired Judge Frank A. Marullo, Jr., Judge Paul A. Bonin, Minute Clerk Frank A. Marullo, III, ADA Nicholas Bergeron, the Judiciary Courts, and the City of New Orleans alleging a 1996–1998 conspiracy to use fraudulent documents that led to his coerced guilty plea and ~15 years incarceration.
- Damond alleged the defendants converted him into a “thing” by altering his name, filed a fraudulent true bill, coerced a guilty plea, and "securitized" the fraudulent instrument (allegedly traded and worth ~$52,270,000).
- Defendants Marullo (ret.), Bonin, and Marullo III filed a peremptory exception asserting prescription and no cause of action based on judicial immunity; Bergeron raised prosecutorial immunity and other exceptions.
- The trial court sustained the peremptory exception as to prescription and judicial immunity for the judges and minute clerk by judgment of March 6, 2019; Damond filed a devolutive appeal; the trial court later sustained Bergeron’s prosecutorial immunity but that April 8 judgment is not before this appeal.
- The appellate court reviewed the March 6 judgment de novo (no evidence was introduced on prescription), concluded the claims against the judges and minute clerk were prescribed and, alternatively, that those defendants are absolutely immune for actions within their judicial capacities, and affirmed dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Damond's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prescription — Are the claims time-barred? | Damond implied timely filing by submitting paperwork in July 2018 and asserting ongoing harm. | Defendants argued the alleged injuries occurred in 1996–1998 and the one-year liberative prescriptive period bars a 2018 suit. | Court: Claims are prescribed on the face of the petition; burden shifted to Damond to show otherwise and he failed to do so. |
| Judicial immunity — Are the judges and minute clerk immune for the alleged acts? | Damond contended some acts were administrative/nonjudicial and thus not immune. | Defendants maintained the actions/omissions were judicial functions within their official duties and entitled to absolute immunity. | Court: Acts alleged were judicial or integrally related to the judicial process; judges and minute clerk are absolutely immune; no cause of action. |
| Appeal scope / post-divestiture rulings — Is Bergeron’s April 8, 2019 judgment before the court? | Damond did not appeal April 8 judgment. | Defendants noted trial court also sustained Bergeron’s prosecutorial immunity. | Court: April 8 judgment is not before this appeal; only the March 6 judgment (dismissal of claims vs. judges and minute clerk) is reviewed here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967) (judicial immunity applies even when judge acted maliciously)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (judicial immunity bars suits for acts within judicial capacity unless acted in complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Scheffler v. Adams & Reese, LLP, 950 So. 2d 641 (La. 2007) (standards for peremptory exception of no cause of action and fact‑pleading rule)
- Quinn v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 118 So. 3d 1011 (La. 2012) (prescription burdens when petition is facially prescribed)
- Palowsky v. Campbell, 249 So. 3d 945 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2018) (distinguishing judicial from administrative functions)
- Johnson v. Foti, 583 So. 2d 1210 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1991) (clerk immunity for functions integral to judicial process)