Hall v. Jones, 453 S.W.3d 674

In 2004 Hall was arrested in Miller County and $5,093 was seized from his vehicle; the State filed an in rem forfeiture complaint in August 2005.
Hall was served with the forfeiture summons; he did not respond and did not appeal the ensuing default judgment entered in 2006 (later amended for interest).
In July 2013 Hall (pro se, incarcerated in Jefferson County) sued the Miller County prosecuting attorney, the presiding Miller County circuit judge, and the Miller County circuit clerk, seeking to collaterally attack the 2006 default forfeiture judgment.
Hall alleged lack of jurisdiction/timeliness of the in rem complaint, defective notice/summons, and that the judge refused to rule on a petition to vacate and the clerk withheld certified documents.
The Jefferson County Circuit Court dismissed Hall’s complaint with prejudice and treated the dismissal as a strike under Ark. Code § 16-68-607; Hall appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit judge can be sued for entering the forfeiture default judgment	Hall contended judge lacked jurisdiction and refused to rule on his motion to vacate	Judge entitled to judicial immunity for acts in judicial capacity	Dismissal affirmed: judge immune from suit
Whether the prosecuting attorney can be sued for filing/handling the in rem forfeiture action	Hall alleged prosecuting attorney filed untimely/defective pleadings and failed to give notice	Prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity for advocacy functions	Dismissal affirmed: prosecutor immune from suit
Whether the circuit clerk is liable for withholding certified documents	Hall alleged clerk would not provide certified records because judge hadn’t signed	No appellate argument raised against clerk; claim abandoned	Claim abandoned; dismissal stands
Whether collateral attack via civil suit is an appropriate remedy for challenging the default judgment	Hall sought to collaterally attack the forfeiture judgment in a civil suit	Proper remedy was to appeal or seek relief in the trial court, not a civil suit against judicial/prosecutorial officers	Civil complaint barred as matter of law; dismissal proper

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967) (describing the policy and scope of judicial immunity)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (judicial and other absolute immunities shield from suit for official acts)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (two-part test for judicial immunity: jurisdiction and judicial act)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (distinguishing prosecutor immunity for advocacy versus administrative/investigative functions)
Culpepper v. Smith, 302 Ark. 558, 792 S.W.2d 293 (Ark. 1990) (Arkansas precedent recognizing prosecutorial immunity)
Hutson v. State, 171 Ark. 1132, 287 S.W. 398 (Ark. 1926) (judicial officer exempt from civil liability if acting within jurisdiction and judicial capacity)
Biedenharn v. Thicksten, 361 Ark. 438, 206 S.W.3d 837 (Ark. 2005) (pleading standards and review on motion to dismiss)
State v. Grisby, 370 Ark. 66, 257 S.W.3d 104 (Ark. 2007) (failure to raise below/abandonment of appellate issues)