John Hartsoe v. C.B. McNeil, 2012 MT 221

Hartsoe filed a civil action against Judge McNeil for acts during a pretrial conference in Heisel v. Hartsoe, No. DV-10-353, in the Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court.
Hartsoe alleged the judge used vulgar language, failed to accomplish results, and did not have a court reporter during the conference, while McNeil acted in his official capacity.
McNeil moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of judicial immunity, which Hartsoe did not oppose.
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The Montana Supreme Court reviews de novo a district court’s decision on a motion to dismiss.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that judicial immunity barred Hartsoe’s claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hartsoe’s claims are barred by judicial immunity	Hartsoe contends immunity does not bar his claims	McNeil argues immunity precludes damages for acts in official capacity	Yes; immunity bars the claims

Grizzly Sec. Armored Express v. The Armored Grp., 360 Mont. 517, 255 P.3d 143 (2011 MT 128) (de novo review of dismissal; judicial immunity recognized)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (principles of judicial immunity in U.S. law)
Mead v. McKittrick, 223 Mont. 428, 727 P.2d 517 (1984) (public policy basis for judicial immunity)
Silverstone v. Park Co., 339 Mont. 299, 170 P.3d 950 (2007 MT 261) (judicial immunity without stated limitation)
Steele v. McGregor, 288 Mont. 238, 956 P.2d 1364 (1998 MT 85) (explicit acknowledgment of immunity in judicial duties)