Timothy Cooper v. James Rapp
702 F. App'x 328
6th Cir.2017Background
- In 2011 Cooper learned a cognovit judgment had been entered against him; Moses (his African-American attorney) filed a class action in Wyandot County, Ohio challenging the bank’s use of cognovit judgments and the statute’s constitutionality.
- Judge James Rapp granted summary judgment for the defendants in June 2014 and later held a sanctions hearing, imposing $43,704 in monetary sanctions on both Cooper and Moses.
- Judge Rapp also ordered nonmonetary sanctions against Moses: an apology letter acknowledging misconduct, posting it on his website for one year, and threatened incarceration for noncompliance; Moses later complied to avoid jail.
- Cooper and Moses sued Judge Rapp and the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas in federal court alleging racial motivation for the rulings and violations of multiple constitutional amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney fees.
- The district court dismissed under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), finding lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Rooker–Feldman and Younger abstention) and judicial immunity for Judge Rapp; the court also held the county common pleas court cannot be sued.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, focusing on judicial immunity for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive claims and the non‑suability of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Judge Rapp liable for money damages under § 1983 for alleged racially motivated rulings and sanctions? | Cooper/Moses: sanctions and conduct were racially motivated; seek damages. | Judge Rapp: entitled to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts. | Court: judicial acts (summary judgment, sanctions) are protected; immunity bars damages. |
| Is declaratory relief against Judge Rapp available under § 1983 for alleged unconstitutional conduct? | Cooper/Moses: § 1983 allows declaratory relief against judges after 1996 amendment. | Judge Rapp: declaratory relief unavailable because judge acted as adjudicator, no live Article III controversy. | Court: declaratory relief barred where judge adjudicated claims; no live controversy here. |
| Is injunctive relief against Judge Rapp available to prevent enforcement of sanctions? | Cooper/Moses: seek injunctions against sanctions enforcement and future similar conduct. | Judge Rapp: injunctive relief against a judicial officer is barred absent violated or unavailable declaratory decree. | Court: injunctive relief barred; plaintiffs did not satisfy § 1983’s prerequisite. |
| Can plaintiffs sue the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas? | Cooper/Moses: sued the court as a defendant for its role in imposing sanctions. | Defendant: the court lacks independent legal existence and is not suable absent statute. | Court: Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas is not a proper party and claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity bars suits for money damages even if judge acted maliciously)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (public interest in judicial independence supports immunity)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (broad construction of judge’s jurisdictional scope for immunity)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (distinguishing judicial from administrative acts)
- Mann v. Conlin, 22 F.3d 100 (6th Cir. 1994) (functional test confirms scheduling, sanctions, and contempt are paradigmatic judicial acts)
- Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1997) (paradigmatic judicial acts resolve disputes between parties invoking the court)