Lampton v. Diaz
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21791
5th Cir.2011Background
- This action arises from a 2006 Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance complaint against Oliver Diaz.
- Diaz was criminally charged; he was acquitted and Jennifer Diaz pled guilty to tax evasion.
- Dunnica Lampton, the U.S. Attorney, filed the Commission complaint; Lampton allegedly attached Diaz’s records to the complaint.
- Lampton, a Commission member, participated in the investigation; the Commission later dismissed the complaint in Dec. 2008.
- Lampton then filed a Mississippi circuit court declaratory-judgment action seeking immunity from suit for conduct arising from his Commission duties.
- The district court granted immunity for federal/state claims but held Lambton’s filing of the declaratory action was an individual act, not within his official duties, denying summary judgment on the immunity issue; Lampton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lampton has immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 9-19-29 for filing declaratory relief. | Lampton contends immunity covers conduct arising from Commission duties. | Diazes argue the filing is a personal act outside official duties. | Yes; the action arises from Lampton’s Commission duties and is immunized. |
| Whether the immunity extends to conduct beyond the Commission’s scope in the declaratory action. | Immunity should cover all conduct arising from duties, including declaratory-relief filing. | Immunity limited to acts within performance of official duties. | Yes; filing for declaratory relief falls within conduct arising from official duties. |
| Whether Mississippi law on immunity for Commission members should be interpreted broadly or narrowly. | Immunity should be broadly construed to protect official functions. | Immunity should be constrained by statutory text and case law. | Immunity broadly construed to cover official duties under § 9-19-29. |
| Whether federal collateral-order review is proper for a state-immunity ruling. | Appealability is proper under collateral-order doctrine for immunity rulings. | Not disputed; standard is de novo review on appeal. | The denial of immunity is appealable; this court has jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Netterville v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1109 (Miss. 1981) (immunity relating to complaints and communications under disciplinary proceedings)
- Roussel v. Robbins, 688 So. 2d 714 (Miss. 1996) (immunity not extending to non-predicated actions under disciplinary rules)
- Big '2' Engine Rebuilders v. Freeman, 379 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 1980) (broad interpretation of the phrase arising out of employment for coverage; analogous reasoning for duties of commission members)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1981) (preemptive or preventative relief in declaratory judgment context; general principle of standing to seek relief)
- Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1983) (declaratory judgment act as discretionary, not absolute right)