249 So. 3d 945
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Stanley R. Palowsky III (individually and derivatively for AESI) sued Fourth JDC law clerk Allyson Campbell and five Fourth JDC judges, alleging Campbell intentionally destroyed/withheld court records in Palowsky v. Cork and the judges aided, abetted, and covered up her conduct.
- Campbell and the judges moved to strike numerous paragraphs as immaterial and filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action asserting absolute judicial immunity; trial court struck 46 paragraphs and dismissed all defendants on immunity grounds.
- On appeal the court reviewed the trial court's strikes for abuse of discretion and exceptions of no cause of action de novo, accepting pleadings as true for the immunity analysis.
- The appellate court reversed in part the motions-to-strike judgment, restoring allegations that tended to show a pattern of document destruction by Campbell, and affirmed the striking of other paragraphs as immaterial.
- The court held the judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity and affirmed dismissal of claims against them, but reversed dismissal as to Campbell to the extent the petition alleges independent, nonjudicial acts (intentional destruction/withholding of court documents) outside any judge's direction or jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were specific pleading allegations immaterial and properly stricken under La. C.C.P. art. 964? | Palowsky: paragraphs showing pattern of misconduct and cover-up are material to his claims. | Judges/Campbell: many allegations are irrelevant, scandalous, and prejudicial. | Court: affirmed striking many paragraphs but reversed as to several that plausibly show a pattern of document destruction (those paragraphs were material). |
| Do the judges have absolute judicial immunity from Palowsky's claims? | Palowsky: judges acted administratively or conspiratorially to cover up nonjudicial misconduct and are not immune. | Judges: their supervision, assignment, and interaction with law clerk are judicial functions; absolute immunity applies. | Court: affirmed — judges have absolute immunity; claims against them dismissed. |
| Is Campbell (law clerk) entitled to absolute immunity for alleged destruction/withholding of records? | Palowsky: Campbell acted independently, outside her role and without judicial direction, and thus not immune for nonjudicial, intentional destruction of records. | Campbell: as a law clerk performing functions integral to the judicial process, she is entitled to derivative absolute immunity. | Court: reversed dismissal as to Campbell for alleged independent intentional destruction/withholding of documents (nonjudicial acts not covered by immunity). |
| Should plaintiff have been allowed to amend after strikes / immunity rulings? | Palowsky: trial court wrongly denied leave to amend. | Defendants: immunity and immateriality justified the rulings; leave unnecessary. | Court: pretermitted extended discussion on amendment as to judges (immunity dispositive); did not grant relief on amendment issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967) (origin and purposes of judicial immunity)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1872) (judicial immunity protects judges exercising authority without fear of personal liability)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (focus on nature/function of act to determine judicial character)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1988) (distinguishing judicial acts from administrative functions)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1985) (scope and rationale of absolute judicial immunity)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (immunity is an immunity from suit; exceptions for nonjudicial acts or acts in clear absence of jurisdiction)
- Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1988) (law clerks may share derivative absolute immunity when assisting judge in judicial functions)
- Mitchell v. McBryde, 944 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1991) (law clerk immunity derivative of judge's immunity)
- Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2005) (factors for determining whether an act is judicial in nature)