285 So.3d 466
La.2019Background
- Stanley Palowsky sued a Fourth Judicial District Court law clerk (Allyson Campbell) and several judges, alleging the clerk destroyed or concealed documents in Palowsky’s separate pending case (Palowsky v. Cork) and the judges aided or covered up those acts.
- Palowsky asserted causes including spoliation of court records, fraud/abuse of process, violation of La. R.S. 14:132 (injuring public records), and intentional infliction of emotional distress; he later added allegations about payroll fraud and failure to supervise.
- The district court granted exceptions of no cause of action and struck portions of the petition; on appeal an en banc First Circuit reversed as to the clerk but affirmed dismissal of claims against the judges based on absolute judicial immunity.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated appeals to decide whether judicial immunity bars Palowsky’s claims against the clerk and the judges given the petition’s allegations (accepted as true for the exception stage).
- The Court’s per curiam reversed the court of appeal insofar as it dismissed claims against the judges with prejudice, holding that the petition alleges non-judicial/administrative conduct (supervision, investigation, and alleged cover-up) for which absolute judicial immunity does not apply; it affirmed other parts of the appellate decision and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the law clerk is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for alleged destruction/spoliation of filings | Palowsky: clerk’s acts deprived him of access to courts and were not judicial acts; she should be liable | Campbell: as a court employee whose duties are intertwined with judges, she is immune when acting in service of judicial functions | Court: clerk not immune at this stage because alleged acts are outside protected judicial functions and not shown to be at judges’ direction |
| Whether the judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for alleged failure to supervise / alleged cover-up | Palowsky: judges’ supervision/cover-up were administrative or criminal acts outside adjudicative functions, so no immunity | Judges: their actions pertained to conduct in cases before them and thus were judicial acts entitled to absolute immunity | Court: petition alleges administrative/non-judicial supervision and investigative failures and an alleged cover-up; immunity does not apply on the pleadings; appellate dismissal reversed in part |
| Whether plaintiff has standing to pursue claims unrelated to the Cork litigation (e.g., payroll fraud) | Palowsky: payroll fraud and other misconduct related to clerk’s pattern and harmed court operations and his case | Defendants: such allegations concern public interest and not particularized injury to Palowsky | Held: Palowsky lacks standing for claims not tied to his Cork case; only Cork-related allegations confer standing |
| Proper standard for overcoming judicial immunity at pleading stage | Palowsky: pled specific facts alleging non-judicial misconduct; malice/corruption labels suffice | Defendants: immunity applies broadly; malice/corruption insufficient only to permit suit | Held: courts accept well-pleaded facts as true on exception of no cause of action; the functional test (judicial vs. nonjudicial act) governs immunity rather than pleading malice; petition sufficiently alleges nonjudicial acts to survive dismissal against judges and clerk at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1988) (administrative acts by judges are not protected by absolute judicial immunity)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (judicial immunity is immunity from suit even when bad faith or malice alleged)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (functional test: whether act is normally performed by a judge and expectations of parties)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967) (historical foundation for absolute judicial immunity)
- Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1988) (law clerks may share judge’s immunity when acting as extensions of judicial decisionmaking)
- Knapper v. Connick, 671 So.2d 944 (La. 1996) (Louisiana adopts federal principles on absolute judicial immunity)