471 F. App'x 818
10th Cir.2012Background
- Rose, a Utah attorney, sued the Utah State Bar, OPC, its attorneys Townsend and Walker, Ethics Committee chair Arthur Burger, and Judge Vernice Trease.
- Rose alleged the Bar Defendants pursued a disciplinary proceeding in Utah state court in violation of her constitutional rights.
- Rose alleged Judge Trease erred in jurisdiction, engaged in ex parte contact with an OPC attorney, and blocked a motion to recuse.
- The district court dismissed the action under Rule 12(b)(6); it held Judge Trease had absolute judicial immunity and applied issue preclusion related to Younger abstention due to prior dismissals.
- The district court also sanctioned Rose for filing abuses and barred pro se filings absent preconditions; Rose appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing without a hearing and imposing filing restrictions | Rose argues an oral hearing was required and due process was violated. | Court acted within discretion; written briefing suffices and hearing was not mandatory. | No abuse of discretion; hearing not required and due process satisfied. |
| Whether the district court should have converted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment | Conversion was required because outside filings warranted consideration of issue preclusion. | Conversion not required; judicial notice and public records suffice. | Conversion not required; proper to rely on judicial notice and records. |
| Whether Judge Trease is absolutely immune from suit | Rose contends not all acts by Judge Trease are immune. | Judicial acts within the judge’s function are immune regardless of error or excess of authority. | Judge Trease enjoyed absolute judicial immunity. |
| Whether issue preclusion/ Younger abstention foreclose the action and whether declaratory relief is available | Exceptions to Younger (bad faith/harassment) could allow relitigation; seek declaratory relief. | No viable exceptions; Younger bars relitigation and declaratory relief is not available. | Issue preclusion bars relitigation; declaratory relief and re-litigation of Younger issues rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity generally covers acts performed in a judge's official capacity)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (judicial immunity extends to acts that are part of judicial functions)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (immunity applies even if error or excess of authority occurs)
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) (Younger's abstention can be applicable in disciplinary proceedings)
- D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497, 392 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2004) (Younger's abstention and declaratory relief principles; forum adequacy)
- Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885 (10th Cir. 1997) (issue preclusion framework in Younger abstention context)
- Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971) (principles governing declaratory relief within abstention context)
- Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989) (due process considerations in pretrial procedures)
- Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2003) (district court may decide whether to hold oral hearings)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (pleading and procedural standards post-2007; context for motions)