Rusk v. Warner
693 F. App'x 778
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Zachary Rusk, proceeding in forma pauperis, sued Chief Magistrate Judge Paul Warner alleging defamatory statements and a related constitutional injury and sought an injunction barring discrimination against protected classes.
- The complaint was six pages with lengthy exhibits but contained almost no factual detail about the alleged statements or how they violated constitutional rights.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim and concluded Judge Warner was absolutely immune from injunctive relief.
- The district court relied in part on persuasive authority from other circuits holding that judicial immunity precludes injunctive claims against federal judges.
- Rusk appealed; the Tenth Circuit panel reviewed the pleadings, found pleading defects and no persuasive legal basis to overturn the immunity ruling, and affirmed the dismissal.
- The Tenth Circuit also denied Rusk’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees, concluding his appeal lacked a nonfrivolous argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 8(a)(2) | Rusk alleged defamation and constitutional harm but provided few facts | Complaint fails to allege factual detail linking alleged statements to constitutional violation | Dismissed: complaint does not meet Iqbal/Twombly plausibility and factual-pleading standards |
| Judicial immunity for injunctive relief against a federal judge | Absolute judicial immunity violates the Constitution; injunction appropriate | Judicial officers are absolutely immune, which bars injunctive claims against them | Affirmed: absolute judicial immunity bars the injunctive claim; no basis to reverse |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleadings must contain factual allegations supporting plausible claims)
- Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000) (absolute judicial immunity can preclude injunctive relief against judges)
- Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987) (judicial immunity bars certain suits against judicial officers)
- Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2010) (appellate IFP standards require a nonfrivolous argument to proceed without prepayment of fees)