State v. Keller-Bee
119 A.3d 80
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Cynthia Keller-Bee was arrested on a body attachment issued Jan 20, 2011 for an alleged failure to appear at a civil show-cause hearing that occurred Apr 16, 2010; she had in fact appeared and the matter was dismissed at that hearing.
- After arrest and release, Keller-Bee learned from the District Court clerk’s office that the warrant had been improperly issued.
- Keller-Bee sued the State in Baltimore City Circuit Court (negligence against an unidentified clerk and a Maryland constitutional claim).
- The State moved to dismiss on the basis of absolute judicial immunity; the circuit court denied the motion, citing concerns about the nine-month gap between the hearing and issuance of the warrant.
- The State appealed under the collateral order doctrine, and the Court of Special Appeals accepted review to decide whether absolute judicial immunity bars Keller-Bee’s suit based on the judge’s order and the clerk’s presentment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is proper under the collateral order doctrine | Keller-Bee argued the denial was not immediately appealable | State argued collateral order doctrine permits immediate appeal when judicial immunity is implicated | Appeal allowed: denial of immunity was reviewable under the collateral order doctrine |
| Whether absolute judicial immunity bars a tort suit stemming from a judge’s entry of an order (warrant) | Keller-Bee argued immunity does not extend to negligent acts of clerk not acting under judge’s direction | State argued immunity covers judicial acts and extends to clerks performing functions integral to the judicial process | Reversed circuit court: absolute judicial immunity applies; clerk’s presentment of the warrant is a judicial act and clerk is entitled to immunity |
| Whether immunity turns on identity of actor or function performed | Keller-Bee emphasized clerk status and alleged negligence outside judicial direction | State emphasized functional test: immunity attaches to judicial functions regardless of actor | Court applied D’Aoust functional test: function (issuance/presentment of warrant) controls; identity less important |
| Whether Maryland law permits extension of judicial immunity to judicial adjuncts when acting within scope of employment | Keller-Bee argued clerk may have acted outside scope (gap in time) | State relied on precedent extending immunity to clerks/law clerks when performing judicial tasks | Court held scope-of-employment concern insufficient at pleading stage; presentment of warrants is a routine clerical/ judicial adjunct function entitled to absolute immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 (court of appeals 1995) (issuance of warrants is a judicial act warranting absolute judicial immunity)
- D’Aoust v. Diamond, 424 Md. 549 (court of appeals 2012) (adopts functional test: immunity depends on whether the act was by a judicial officer and whether it was a judicial act)
- Gill v. Ripley, 352 Md. 754 (court of appeals 1999) (extends immunity to nonjudge staff performing tasks integral to the judicial process)
- Dawkins v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, 376 Md. 53 (court of appeals 2003) (discusses narrow scope of collateral order doctrine for interlocutory appeals involving immunity)
- Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (supports extending immunity to courtroom clerks to prevent indirect suits against judicial adjuncts)