Smith v. Glanz
662 F. App'x 595
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Franklin Smith, a Tulsa County Jail inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Sheriff Stanley Glanz, Special Judge Dawn Moody, and jail supervisor Tracy Jennings colluded to exclude him from a sheriff’s mental-health program; he also referenced Title II of the ADA.
- Smith proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis; the district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- The district court dismissed claims against Judge Moody with prejudice on grounds of absolute judicial immunity and dismissed claims against Glanz and Jennings without prejudice for failure of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
- The Marshal could not serve Glanz because he no longer worked at the sheriff’s office, and could not locate Jennings as she was not an employee of the sheriff’s office or the jail’s health services provider.
- Smith failed to show good cause after the court’s show-cause order; final judgment entered and Smith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Moody is immune from § 1983 money-damages claims | Moody cannot be shielded by absolute immunity for actions excluding Smith from the program | Judges are generally absolutely immune for judicial acts; immunity bars monetary § 1983 suits | Court: Affirmed — Moody entitled to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts |
| Whether Title II ADA claims can be asserted against Judge Moody | ADA Title II claim against Moody (individual liability) valid | Title II applies only to public entities, not to individual employees or judges | Court: Dismissed ADA claims against Moody for failure to state a claim (Title II does not permit individual liability) |
| Whether dismissal without prejudice for failure of service under Rule 4(m) was proper for Glanz and Jennings | Smith argued dismissal was erroneous (on appeal) | District court: timely notice, opportunity to show cause; no good cause shown; Rule 4(m) required dismissal or extension | Court: Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing without prejudice under Rule 4(m) |
| Whether district court complied with § 1915A screening requirements | Smith implied screening was incorrect as to immunity/ADA issues | District court dismissed immune defendant and claims that fail to state a claim per § 1915A(b) | Court: Reviewed de novo and affirmed the § 1915A dismissals as correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity for acts within judicial capacity)
- Stein v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Ct. of N.M., 520 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2008) (summary of judicial immunity exceptions)
- City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (2015) (Title II of the ADA applies to public entities, not individuals)
- Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of § 1915A dismissals)
- Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 4(m) dismissals)