K. Palamar v. Honorable D. Clifford
300 M.D. 2024
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 23, 2025Background
- Keila Palamar, representing herself, filed a petition against Judge Daniel J. Clifford in his official capacity, alleging misconduct in a child custody proceeding.
- Palamar claims Judge Clifford discriminated against her, improperly eliminated her custody rights, mishandled procedural matters, and caused her financial and emotional harm.
- Clifford is the presiding judge over Palamar’s ongoing child custody case in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
- Palamar also alleged Clifford committed crimes, refused to recuse himself, and violated confidentiality and procedural rules.
- Judge Clifford filed preliminary objections, asserting Eleventh Amendment, sovereign, and judicial immunity, noting two prior similar federal lawsuits by Palamar had already been dismissed on immunity grounds.
- The Commonwealth Court focused solely on the judicial immunity defense in deciding the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity for official court actions | Clifford acted maliciously, discriminated, violated law | Judicial acts are shielded by absolute immunity | Judicial immunity bars claims. |
| Jurisdiction for custody court’s actions | Clifford lacked subject matter jurisdiction | Clifford had jurisdiction over custody matters | Clifford had jurisdiction. |
| Exception to judicial immunity for criminal acts | Clifford committed crimes & broke confidentiality | Even egregious judicial acts are immune if within jurisdiction | Still protected under immunity. |
| Procedural timeliness of objections | Objections were untimely | Filing complied with procedural rules | Objections timely, no prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Page v. Rogers, 324 A.3d 661 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024) (judicial immunity applies to civil damages for judicial acts)
- Chasan v. Platt, 244 A.3d 73 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (judicial immunity applies unless judge acts in clear absence of jurisdiction)
- Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (judges immune from damages for judicial acts, even if allegedly malicious)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (distinction between judicial and non-judicial acts in immunity analysis)
- Petition of Dwyer, 406 A.2d 1355 (Pa. 1979) (quasi-judicial/official immunity does not cover acts in absence of jurisdiction)