Vivian Wright-Bolton v. Melanie Andress-Tobiasson
696 F. App'x 258
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vivian Wright-Bolton sued Judge Melanie Andress-Tobiasson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims arising from a judicial order related to Wright-Bolton’s Canadian divorce proceeding.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Judge Andress-Tobiasson based on absolute judicial immunity and denied Wright-Bolton’s Rule 56(d) motion to stay for further discovery.
- The core legal dispute was whether the judge’s order was a judicial act and whether it was taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.
- Nevada Justice Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction arguably did not extend to the Canadian divorce matter, but the Canadian statute referenced courts in the state where a spouse resides, creating a potential basis for jurisdiction.
- Wright-Bolton failed to specify the particular facts she sought through additional discovery to oppose summary judgment.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the judge immune and the denial of the Rule 56(d) stay was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge entitled to absolute judicial immunity | Judge acted beyond authority; immunity should not shield wrongful acts | Judicial acts are absolutely immune unless nonjudicial or in complete absence of jurisdiction | Judge immune: actions were judicial and not in complete absence of jurisdiction |
| Whether the acts were "nonjudicial" | Order was improper and thus nonjudicial | Issuance of orders is quintessentially judicial | Acts were judicial in nature |
| Whether judge acted in "complete absence of all jurisdiction" | Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Canadian divorce matters | Judge had colorable authority under broad Canadian statute reference; misinterpretation does not equal no jurisdiction | No complete absence of jurisdiction; colorable authority existed |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying Rule 56(d) stay | More discovery would produce facts to defeat summary judgment | Plaintiff did not specify facts she expected to obtain | Denial affirmed: plaintiff failed to identify specific facts sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity applies except for nonjudicial acts or acts in complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (issuance of orders is a judicial act; defects in form do not render an act nonjudicial)
- Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (colorable authority for jurisdiction defeats claim of acting in clear absence of jurisdiction)
- Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202 (9th Cir. 1988) (misinterpretation of statute and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction does not equal complete absence of jurisdiction)
- California ex rel. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 56(d) requires identification of specific facts expected from further discovery)