Moncelle v. McDade
89 N.E.3d 1040
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In 2004 Michael Moncelle died in a collision with a truck owned/operated by trucking defendants; Patricia Moncelle sued in 2005 alleging wrongful death, willful and wanton conduct, and violations of federal trucking regulations.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment as to specific regulatory subparagraphs but left portions of all 10 counts for trial; shortly before trial the trucking defendants admitted liability and damages became the only issue; Moncelle voluntarily dismissed the 2005 case.
- Moncelle refiled in 2008; the trial court dismissed the 2008 suit as barred by res judicata. She separately petitioned under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 to vacate prior rulings based on newly discovered evidence; that petition was denied.
- On appeal the Third District (a panel including Justices McDade, Wright, and O’Brien) issued a Rule 23 order affirming the dismissals; Moncelle repeatedly argued the appellate panel misstated the record by referring to an "order dismissing the counts" that she said did not exist.
- Moncelle then sued the three appellate justices, alleging they intentionally fabricated a trial-court order in the Rule 23 opinion, committed criminal misconduct and ethical violations, and caused her loss of her claims; the justices moved to dismiss based on judicial/sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on immunity and pleadings grounds; on appeal the Second District (by assignment) affirmed solely on judicial immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moncelle's allegation that appellate justices fabricated a trial-court order is a "nonjudicial" act outside judicial immunity | Moncelle: Fabricating a nonexistent trial-court order is not a function normally performed by judges and thus is nonjudicial, so immunity does not apply | Justices: Entry of the Rule 23 opinion was a judicial act resolving an appeal; immunity covers judicial acts even if alleged falsehoods are contained in the order | Held: Entry of the Rule 23 order was a judicial act and is protected by absolute judicial immunity; allegation of intentional fabrication does not remove immunity |
| Whether dismissal should be sustained for failure to state a claim (alternative ground) | Moncelle: Complaint stated actionable misconduct and damages caused by the justices’ alleged fabrication | Justices: Complaint fails to overcome immunity and does not state a viable claim against judges for acts taken in their judicial capacity | Held: Court considered immunity dispositive and affirmed dismissal; pleads insufficiency was also found below but the appellate decision rests on judicial immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (court held judges absolutely immune for judicial acts even if done maliciously or containing falsehoods)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity applies despite grave procedural errors and flawed exercise of authority)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (identifies two exceptions to judicial immunity: nonjudicial acts and acts in complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (discusses limits of judicial immunity for administrative acts and the importance of judicial independence)