Marilyn Newsome v. David Shoemake
2016-CA-00280-SCT
| Miss. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- In 2010 Joe Dale Walker appointed Marilyn Newsome conservator for her disabled adult daughter Victoria and approved settlement distributions from a medical-malpractice recovery. Disputes arose over ex parte orders, payments to attorneys and contractors, and transfers for construction of a special-needs home.
- Chancellor Walker and Chancellor David Shoemake signed various ex parte orders approving payments and transfers; allegations include unauthorized orders, improper attorney fees, use of a contractor related to Walker, and dissipation of conservatorship assets.
- The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance investigated; Walker pled guilty in federal court to obstruction of justice and was removed; Shoemake was disciplined (public reprimand, fine, suspension) but not removed.
- Marilyn filed suit in Simpson County Chancery Court seeking accounting, return of funds, damages (including §1983 claims) against Walker, Shoemake, McNulty, Peoples Bank, and others.
- The chancellor granted Walker’s and Shoemake’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissals under Rule 54(b) on judicial-immunity grounds and stayed discovery as to them; Marilyn appealed several rulings including denial to disqualify the Attorney General from representing Shoemake.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed: judicial immunity bars the claims against both judges; the stay of discovery and denial to disqualify the Attorney General were not reversible error; the Court struck one unsupported allegation from the appellant’s brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 54(b) certification was improper (piecemeal appeal) | Newsome: multiple related claims from same facts, Rule 54(b) causes piecemeal litigation | Walker/Shoemake: immunity issue is dispositive and justifies immediate appeal | Court: No plain error; certification proper because immunity was dispositive and delay would be inequitable |
| Whether judicial immunity bars claims against Walker and Shoemake | Newsome: judges acted nonjudicially or in clear absence of jurisdiction (corrupt acts, cover-up), so immunity shouldn't apply | Judges: acts were judicial in nature and within subject-matter jurisdiction of the conservatorship; judicial immunity applies despite allegations of corruption | Court: Affirmed — judicial immunity applies because they had jurisdiction over the subject matter when taking challenged actions |
| Whether stay of discovery was erroneous | Newsome: stay prevented development of facts showing Shoemake’s liability | Shoemake/Walker: immunity is a threshold legal issue; discovery would be unnecessary and expensive if immunity applies | Court: No abuse of discretion — stay appropriate when a dispositive immunity motion is pending |
| Whether Attorney General should be disqualified from representing Shoemake | Newsome: AG had investigative role or potential conflict; AG could be a witness and had duties to vulnerable adults | Shoemake: AG lawfully represents public officials; no attorney-client relation or prior representation of Newsome; AG won’t be a witness | Court: Denial affirmed — no evidence AG had attorney-client relationship with Newsome or a substantial prior relationship implicating Rules 1.9/3.7 |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity protects judges for judicial acts even if in excess of jurisdiction)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (foundational statement that judges of general jurisdiction are not liable for judicial acts)
- Loyacono v. Ellis, 571 So. 2d 237 (Miss. 1990) (Mississippi precedent applying Stump/Bradley and distinguishing lack of jurisdiction from excess of jurisdiction)
- Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs, Inc., 512 So. 2d 897 (Miss. 1987) (Rule 54(b) judgments should be used cautiously; reserved for rare occasions)
- Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Shoemake, 191 So. 3d 1211 (Miss. 2016) (commission’s disciplinary proceedings and sanctions against Shoemake)
- Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Walker, 172 So. 3d 1165 (Miss. 2015) (Walker’s suspension/removal following criminal plea)