Klayman v. Blackburne-Rigsby
Civil Action No. 2021-0409
| D.D.C. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Larry Klayman sued the thirteen judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Court Clerk after the DCCA issued an interim suspension order (Jan. 7, 2021) suspending him from D.C. bar practice pending disciplinary proceedings and denied emergency relief and rehearing requests.
- He filed the complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction on Feb. 17, 2021 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief.
- The District Court ordered briefing on whether defendants were protected by judicial immunity; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing statutory judicial immunity bars his claims.
- The Court applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards in evaluating the motion to dismiss.
- Central legal question: whether § 1983 (as amended by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996) bars injunctive relief against judicial officers acting in their judicial capacity and whether any statutory exception (declaratory decree violated or declaratory relief unavailable) applies.
- Court ruled that defendants are immune from Klayman’s § 1983 claims; the motion to dismiss was granted and the preliminary injunction motion denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 bars prospective injunctive relief against judicial officers | Pulliam preserves prospective injunctive relief against judges; Klayman seeks only prospective/declaratory relief, not damages | Congress amended § 1983 in 1996 to restore broad judicial immunity and bar injunctive relief against judges acting in judicial capacity | Defendants immune under § 1983 as amended; injunctive relief barred |
| Whether the § 1983 exception applies when "declaratory relief was unavailable" | Klayman contends rehearing/en banc were his only chance for declaratory relief, so declaratory relief was unavailable | Declaratory relief is prospective relief; Klayman attacks past acts and appellate remedies (including certiorari) were available | Exception not satisfied; declaratory relief not "unavailable" |
| Applicability of Bivens and related authority cited by Klayman | Klayman cites Bivens-era cases to argue no absolute immunity for constitutional violations | Those cases involve federal officials or are inapposite; Bivens does not apply to state-court judges | Bivens authorities are inapposite; do not overcome § 1983 immunity here |
| Immunity of court clerk named as defendant | (Implicit) Klayman challenges clerk’s handling of filings | Clerks performing tasks integral to the judicial process share judicial immunity | Clerk immune as to actions integral to judicial process |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: legal conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (common-law rule allowing prospective injunctive relief against judges)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (defining acts as judicial when normally performed by judges)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial function inquiry)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (cause of action against federal officials; distinguishable here)
- Roth v. King, 449 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. recognizing § 1983 amendment bars injunctive relief against judges)
- Moore v. Urguhart, 899 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. view that FCIA amendment provides immunity from injunctive relief)
- Hoai v. Superior Ct. of Dist. of Col., 539 F. Supp. 2d 432 (D.D.C. that appellate remedies render declaratory relief not "unavailable")
- Just. Network Inc. v. Craighead Cty., 931 F.3d 753 (declaratory relief limited to prospective relief)