Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General

1293 physical injury risk of to anoth- potential qualify violent felonies. (cid:127)convictions er[.] vacate Beaulieu’s sentence because he We not to the subject is ACCA’s enhanced 924(e)(2)(B). §Id. penalties and is not armed career crimi- prong of this definition is The first 4B1.4(a). §. nal as defined under U.S.S.G. to as the “elements sometimes referred clause,” prong while the second contains

the “enumerated crimes clause” and what VIII. CONCLUSION commonly clause.” is called the “residual reasons, For affirm above we all Owens, 966, v. F.3d 968 United States and Beaulieu’s Oscar’s convictions. Howev- (11th 2012). Cir. v. United Johnson Esprit, er, Johnson and under we vacate States, held Eight sentence Count Beaulieu’s and is ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutional remand, to the district to resentence court question ly vague, but not into did call him without the ACCA enhancement.21 clause -or the enumerat elements ACCA’s PART; IN AFFIRMED VACATED Johnson ed crimes clause. See v. United States, AND IN PART. -, REMANDED (2015). 2557-58, 2563, 192 L.Ed.2d

Subsequently, this Court held that a burglary conviction under Florida Florida 810.02(l)(b)(l) 810.011(2) §§ Statute felony a violent un- longer constitutes der, Esprit, ACCA. v. United States (11th 2016). 841 F.3d Cir. More Esprit, specifically, in this Court held that STEVENS, Jacqueline Plaintiff- Flori- a Florida conviction under burglary Appellant, 810.02(l)(b)(l) §§ da Statute v. 810.011(2) predi- cannot serve as an ACCA cate offense under the offense enumerated Attorney General, OSUNA, Di Juan implicate clause not “indisputably does rector, Immigra Office Executive 1240-41. elements Id. clause.” Review, capacity, in his official Mooney, Esprit, Fran Director Thus, Assistant after Johnson Management Programs, Office of burglary con Beaulieu’s particular Florida Re Executive Office viction for the does not count purposes view in her and official ca individual looking the ACCA. even And Keller, Marybeth PSR, pacity, Assistant other convictions we listed Immigration Judge, Chief Executive prior has two conclude Beaulieu - rights his his because appeal 21. On an ineffec- Fourth Amendment Beaulieu advances claim, citing voluntary. his tri- tive-assistance-of-counsel to the search was not consent sup- al counsel’s failure to file a motion to developed on this Because record not press. argues he Beaulieu statements claim, appeal. will it on direct address made to officers on law enforcement federal Bender, States F.3d United April day he orchestrated the 2013—the 2002) ("We generally will not con $2,300—were rob ruse to ofUA elicited claims of assistance coun sider ineffective from him in Fifth Amendment of his violation n appeal where the sel on-direct rights. Beaulieu contends further residence, develop nor did entertain the claim resulting search of his sei- record.”). money robbery, zure of the from the violated factual Review, Immigration in her Office of Gary capacity, and official

individual Smith, Chief Assistant Immigra Judge, Office Executive Review, in offi his individual and al., Defendants-Ap capacity, et cial pellees, Doe,

Inspector Federal Protective Services, al., et Defendants. 16-12007

No. of Appeals, United States Eleventh Circuit. December Law, Brown,

Bruce P. Bruce P. Brown Federal, Jr., Keegan Robert Rene Octavio Firm, LLC, Atlanta, Lerer, The Federal GA, Plaintiff-Appellant. for Olens, Hughes, Aleen Bell Scott Samuel Atlanta, GA, Office, Attorney’s Chris- U.S. Hollis, of topher Department Jus- W. tice, Division, DC, Washington, Civil for Defendants-Appellees. JULIE and

Before CARNES EDMONDSON, Judges, Circuit

WILLIAMS,* Judge. District

* Florida, Williams, sitting by designation. of Honorable United Kathleen M. States District for the Southern District EDMONDSON, Judge: I. Circuit BACKGROUND journalist university Plaintiff is a Jacqueline appeals Stevens Plaintiff political of professor science. Her area of pursuant of claims she filed dismissal study on process rights focuses the due Agents Unknown Named Bivens Six persons deportation pro- those involved in Narcotics, Bureau of the Fed. ceedings Immigra- and on conduct of (1971). 388, 91 29 L.Ed.2d 619 Judges tion within the Executive Office stated, Briefly Plaintiff contends that her (“EOIR”).1 Immigration Review Before rights constitutional were violated when underlying occurrences this civil ac- tion, hearings published denied access to at the Plaintiff had criticisms of she was deportation proceedings general Plaintiff Immigration Atlanta Court. seeks Immigration Judge per- Cassidy’s William damages, injunctive as monetary as well in particular. formance declaratory affirm relief. We the dis- trict court’s decision. This civil action arises from two sought

dates on which Plaintiff to attend immigration hearings at Immi the Atlanta gration Court.2 On October Plain- hearings: agency adjudicates 1. The EOIR is an Plaintiff’s counts for constitutional alleged "wrong- her immigration Department cases within violations stem delegated immigration hearings authority ful exclusion” from Justice. Under the At- General, were responsible held and "forcible removal" from torney the EOIR is for building. court For the cancellation of hear- interpretation fed- and administration of thus, complaint, laws, ings, Plaintiff’s amended immigration conducting and for eral plain contains “short and statement” immigration appellate court re- proceedings, relief, showing re- views, that she is entitled to hearings. The Unit- and administrative 8(a)(2). quired by Fed. R. Civ. P. Department Justice, ed Executive Of- States Second, first mentioned cancella- https://www. Review, fice hearings (last January in June justice.gov/eoir/about-office visited 14 April complaint, 2010 in her amended 2017). December Judge Cassidy against was filed in his which Thus, capacity only. even if Plaintiff's official 2. Plaintiff contends on appeal that the district complaint be construed as amended could is, (that by failing erred to consider asserting against Judge Cassidy .a claim about) failing Judge Cassidy’s liability write hearings liability for the cancellation cancelling hearings on 22 June 12- days, against Judge Cassidy the claim is those January April and 15 2010. This only capacity. in his official The district court unpersuasive argument for several reasons. agreed—that parties determined—and the First, supposed about the cancellation of damage against Judge Plaintiff's claims Cassi- dates, hearings on Plaintiff's amended these dy by capacity in his official are barred sover- allegation: complaint contains one immunity. eign deporta- was unable to observe Third, “Plaintiff no district court commits reversible hearings Immigration the merely explaining tion/removal opinion error because the 22, 2009, 12-15, 2010, January Court on June expressly its order fails to one of the address 15, 2010, April upon because information complaint. claims in civil a multi-count belief, Martinez, hearings it were cancelled when United Life Co. Am. Ins. F.3d likely (11th 2007) was determined that Plaintiff would (affirming the 1069-70 Cir. alleges sup- no despite Plaintiff facts attendance.” court’s claim district dismissal hearings porting claim can- her that the were the district court’s claim failure to address the (or all, Judge dismissal). wrongfully Cassidy celled or can in its order of After Defendant) any responsible ruling other for or any was affirm a court’s "for reason record, cancelling hearings. the supported otherwise involved if not relied on even com- Nowhere else amended the district court.” Cochran v. Plaintiff’s United Admin., plaint alleged sup- on Care Fin. does she elaborate States Health F.3d 2002). posedly improper cancellation of scheduled 778 n.3 “no,” to Cassidy Plaintiff remain hearings tiff to attend said told wished three listed docket, courtroom, that he would return Cassidy’s Judge on afternoon One Judge Cassi- pertinent regulation. with the hearings was rescheduled alleges dy Plaintiff then left courtroom. Judge request respondent’s lawyer. Cassidy exchange Judge with her then, verbal Cassidy, public closed to the the re- occurred in about 90 seconds and lasted hearings... maining Because Plaintiff two “normal conversational tones.” Plaintiff- member, family attorney- party, was Cassidy re- Judge had concerned that respondents- in those of-record guards to to turned to his order chambers cases, permitted she was observe court- physically from the her remove hearings. Judge Cassidy’s assistant that room—told 19 April On Plaintiff returned to Immigration waiting in the she would be Immigration Court the Atlanta and did respondent lobby the event the Court morning hearings observe held before requested her as an observer. presence Judge Cassidy. The docket one addi- listed Immigration Plaintiff moved Judge hearing tional before scheduled complained lobby, she to “an where Cassidy Judge Cassidy for that afternoon. EOIR about Defen- court staff member and, hearing closed thát ac- closing Cassidy’s unlawful dant actions” cordingly, asked Plaintiff leave the began then docu- the courtroom. Plaintiff complaint, Plaintiff al- courtroom. her menting in her notebook. Be- the incident court- she was asked leged leave building p.m., and 3:20 3:15 .three tween p.m.” room Plaintiff “shortly after asked guards3 lobby security entered the area. “legal Judge reason” for his Cassidy for a Plaintiff to One of the officers asked leave n to 8 request referred him C.F.R. arid building; after a ex- brief verbal 1003.27, § public’s with ‘the which deals change, guards Plaintiff out- escorted hearings. immigration access When parties dispute The Plaintiff side. Judge Cassidy request his repeated building Judge was removed from the courtroom, Plaintiff, Cassidy’s According Plaintiff Plaintiff leave his orders. guard tell respondent she overheard one another re- asked whether had Judge her out guard Cassidy wanted hearing. Judge Cassidy quested a closed building.4 respondent replied “no” and pro Judge Cassidy then proceeding told se. civil in district Plaintiff filed this action security order Plaintiff that he could pertinent purport- court. In part, response, (1) Plain- remove her. guards to raise these claims:5 a Bivens claim ed again legal Judge Cassidy damages against Judge tiff for “a in his Cassidy asked (2) hearing.” Judge capacity; injunc- a claim for closing reason for individual building security guards employ- guards were to remove Plaintiff Inc., (2) Paragon private Systems, Cassidy com- building ees fact security pany provide contracted services gave such a direction. Although for the Atlanta Court. three Plaintiff named defendants Para- sought 8 complaint, 5. In her to assert gon guards supervisor, Paragon those and a defendants; against counts 13 different all appeál. parties to this defendants are not disposed inof a series of claims were orders appeal, court. On Plain issued district 4,, appeal .purposes For and the sake of of this challenges only tiff court's dis district , argument, assumptions we will malte two re claims identified missal (1) .here: the record that about the evidence maining, are not before claims once-asserted support record is find- sufficient to factual appeal. onus ing Cassidy security Judge directed

1301 defendants, nity against including judges .liability all from for damages tive relief (3) Cassidy; claims for dam- Judge Bivens for acts committed within their Assistant Di- ages against Mooney, Fran Cleavinger Saxner, jurisdiction.” v. 474 of Manage- Office rector the EOIR’s 193, 199, 106 496, U.S. 88 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Programs, in capacity; ment her individual (1985). 507 immunity The applies even (4) declaratory judgment. for a claim error, when the judge’s conduct “was The district court dismissed Plaintiffs maliciously, was or done excess Cassidy against Judge Bivens claim in.his Stump Sparkman, his ....” authority grounds Judge capacity individual on 349, 356-57, 1099, 435 U.S. 98 55 S.Ct. Cassidy absolute was entitled to (1978). L.Ed.2d 331 immunity. The court also conclud- district judi- entitled Cassidy ed that .was This is immunity absolute intend from claim for cial Plaintiffs ed “for public, the benefit whose injunctive Plaintiffs claims relief. About judges it is that' the interest should be against remaining relief injunctive liberty to exercise their in functions with defendants, district dismissed fear of dependence and without conse of standing. claims for lack The dis- those Ray, 547, quences.” Pierson v. trict court also dismissed failure (1967). 18 288 87 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d a claim Bivens state Plaintiffs claims against has Mooney. duty district court then A á The- decide cases judp over Plain- jurisdiction declined exercise him, brought including before those cases claim for declaratory tiffs relief. may are controversial and feelings the most intense “arouse OF STANDARD REVIEW II. judge’s may A litigants.” Id. “errors Whether an entitled official appeal, he but should corrected immunity is a of law question absolute litigants may to fear that unsatisfied have City of de novo. Mikko v. we review Atlan litigation charging him with malice hound (11th ta, 2017). F.3d 1142 857 Cir. corruption. Imposing such a burden on or also review novo the court’s We de not to judges principled would contribute claim, ac dismissal failure state decision-making but intimi and fearless allegations as true cepting the factual White, Id.; see also Forrester v. dation.” eomplaint construing them in the 219, 226-27, 98 U.S. light plaintiff. most favorable to the Butler (1988) (“If judges per were Cnty., L.Ed.2d of Palm v. Sheriff Beach F.3d decisions, 2012). sonally for erroneous review a We liable ju suits, district court’s decision not to exercise resulting most of them avalanche over a for declaratory risdiction' claim vexatious, provide pow but would frivolous judgment abuse-of-discretion under judges incentives for to avoid render erful Co., 515 Wilton v. Seven Falls standard. likely provoke ing decisions suits. such 277, 289-90, 2137, 132 115 S.Ct. resulting timidity would be hard (1995). L.Ed.2d control, manifestly or and it would detect impartial from independent detract III. DISCUSSION (citation omitted)). adjudication.” Immunity A. Judicial Absolute Judges immunity is not re Absolute only. judges for Article III “Abso served solidly “Few were doctrines more rank title immunity’flows the immu established law than lute common 1302 within In considering

or ‘location but whether the doctrine Government/ responsibilities from the nature of the judicial immunity absolute proper- extends Cleavinger, the individual official.” 474 ly Immigration Judges, guided we are 201, (citation U.S. at 106 S.Ct. 496 omit- by Supreme in Court’s decisions Butz ted). Supreme Court applied Cleavinger. has thus in recognize first We approach” determining a “functional judges general jurisdic- that—as with whether official is entitled absolute judges— and with administrative law Economou, Id.; immunity. Butz v. 438 Immigration Judges are tasked with re- 478, 612-13, 2894, U.S. 98 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 57 solving every cases that “are bit as frac- (1978). deciding 895 to consider Factors tious as those which come to court.” See apply immunity absolute to a Butz, 513, 438 at U.S. 98 S.Ct. 2894. That person particular include these elements: immigration proceedings are adversarial (a) the need to assure the individual nature and often involve controversial is- perform can his functions without significance sues per- of extreme to those intimidation; (b) harassment sons importance involved underscores the presence safeguards that reduce the preserving Immigration Judge’s in- private damages need for actions as a Stump, dependence. 364, Cf. 435 at U.S. 98 of controlling means unconstitutional (“The 1099 fact S.Ct. that the issue before (c) conduct; political insulation from in- judge is a controversial one is (d) fluence; importance prece- more reason that he should be able act dent; (e) adversary nature suit.”). without fear of (f) process; the correctability er- also Immigration Judge’s We see an role appeal. ror on in immigration proceedings sufficiently as Cleavinger, 202, 474 U.S. at 106 496 “functionally comparable” to that of a Butz, 512, (citing 438 U.S. 98 S.Ct. judge. Immigration Judges possess many 2894). powers of the same as a trial judge. These light of these considerations—as powers power subpoena include wit- policy well underlying the evidence, oaths, nesses administer doctrine—absolute has been ex evidence, to receive and rule on to question Pierson, judges, tended state court 386 witnesses, sanctions, parties to issue 547, 1213, U.S. 87 S.Ct. administrative law credibility determinations, to make and to judges examiners, hearing federal render decisions. 8 U.S.C. Butz, 514, 2894, 438 U.S. 98 S.Ct. feder 1229a(b)(l), (c); § 1003.10(b), §§ 8 C.F.R. prosecutors, al and state Pacht Imbler v. 1003.35. man, 409, 984, 96 S.Ct. Goff, (1976); addition, L.Ed.2d 128 Yaselli v. immigra- structure of (1927), U.S. 48 S.Ct. 72 L.Ed. 395 tion proceedings many contains safe- (2d aff'g 1926), 12 F.2d 396 grand guards—similar (although always Imbler, identical) jurors, n.20, see at 423 to those U.S. discussed Butz testifying 5.Ct. and to witnesses context of hearings6—that administrative LaHue, judicial proceedings, Briscoe risk of tend reduce the un- unchecked 103 S.Ct. by 75 L.Ed.2d 96 constitutional conduct (1983). Judges. Immigration Judges profes- are seq.; hearing process 6. The § administrative consid- 551 et U.S.C. an Act which is not ered gov- immigration Court in Butz applicable proceedings to the Act, erned appeal. Procedure in this Administrative considered

1303 or hearing deciding sional officers. In combination—or lack cases thereof—was them, strictly Immigration Judges re- id. before are determinative. See “independent judgment quired exercise said, having That it in- been find discretion” and to resolve issues an structive many safeguards that 1008.10(a), § “impartial manner.” C.F.R. Cleavinger pointed out as absent are (b). Immigration Judges are also bound instance, present For Supreme here. by agency precedent, both 8 C.F.R. Cleavinger Court about the lack cared 1003.1(g), by precedent § established (1) procedural safeguards: these that by appellate Parties to the federal courts. prisoners subject prison’s disciplin- hearing immigration may represent- ary policy a lawyer were “afforded neither counsel, 1003.16, § may by ed 8 C.F.R. independent nor an representa- nonstaff documentary witness present evidence and (2) tive;” prisoners right that had “no 1003.31, 1003.34, testimony, §§ 8 C.F.R. compel the attendance of witnesses or to 1003.35, and are entitled to written notice (3) cross-examine;” prisoners that had “no Immigration Judge’s decision which (4) “[tjhere right to discovery;” that was decision, “shall” include reasons for (5) cognizable proof;” burden 1240.13(a). 1003.37, 1240.12(a), §§ C.F.R. afforded;” transcript verbatim “[n]o was may Immi- Parties also seek review the “[ijnformation (6) presented often gration Judge’s Board of by decision hearsay self-serving.” at Id. (“BIA”) and, if Immigration Appeals nec- 106 S.Ct. 496.

essary, See 8 U.S.C. federal courts. deportation proceedings, Aliens in how- 1252; § § C.F.R. 1003.38.7 ever, right representation by a have lawyer, right to examine evidence immigration do not proceedings That them, against right and the to cross-exam- safeguards contain identical those safe 1229a(b)(4)(A), § ine witnesses. 8 U.S.C. guards Court in Supreme identified (B). immigration required The also Butz is outcome determinative here. complete record—including to maintain Cleaving- opinion The Court’s Supreme recording—of testimony “verbatim” wholly er that Butz does not demonstrates presented hearing. evidence at judicial-immunity limits of avail define the 1229a(b)(4)(C); § U.S.C. 8 C.F.R. determining In members ability. addition, § immigration pro- 1240.9. discipline of a enti prison committee were ceedings governed by statutorily- are immunity, Supreme tled to absolute proscribed proof. burden 8 U.S.C. compared procedural safeguards Court 1229a(c). § prison’s disciplinary under the available Cleaving Cleavinger policy Supreme to those discussed Butz. Court also er, 203-06, expressed Al 496. members S.Ct. concern disciplinary indepen- though Supreme Court concluded ulti committee lacked 203-04, 206, 106 prison procedural mately policy’s dence. 474 U.S. specially safeguards to warrant ab 496. The noticed were insufficient immunity, safeguard members were “not solute no individual committee duct, procedural to the existence addition Department The United States governing immigration proceed- Immigration safeguards Justice, Re- Executive Office ings, the Chief the Office of https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ view, provides process by expressly a also files/eoir/legacy/2013/05/23/1JComplaint non-parties—can persons—including which Process.pdf. Immigration Judge’s complain con- about adjudicatory Considering both the hearing at professional officers.” Id. Judges And, Immigration play role within because the committee 106 S.Ct. 496. the, members, process and the immigration-hearing of the Bu- remained employees light of of view—in the what Prisons, “they existence of direct we [were] reau subor: guidance—as Supreme Court’s suffi of dinates the warden their who reviews safeguards, are pertinent per cient we members decision.” Id. The committee Judges are Immigration suaded that responsible resolving often dis- were for judges immunity absolute entitled making credibility putes—including deter- acts, regard judicial their to the without the inmate over minations-—between whom allegedly are motive with which acts those in..judgment em- they and fellow sat performed. we underline that absolute And lodged the disciplinary ployee who had merely immunity a defense liabili- Is charge. members The committee were Id. is an from from it suit and n : pressure to a “thus under .obvious resolve litigation” of “is “the other burdens dispute in of disciplinary favor the institu- erroneously a is effectively if lost case (“It employee.” is their fellow and Id. permitted go Cf. Mitchell trial.” problem of old situational relation- Forsyth, 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. ship keeper kept, and the between 411 (1985). 86 L.Ed.2d hardly is relationship that conducive to adjudicative truly performance.”). Judge Cassidy’s Entitlement:. meanwhile, Immigration Judges, un- are Immunity to Absolute supervision of the der direction and Having determined Immigration Judge, Chief has “no who judicial immunity ap doctrine absolute adjudi- authority to the result direct plies Immigration next de Judges, we immigration another assigned cation Cassidy’s complained- Judge cide whether (c). § 1003.9(b), judge.” 8 C.F.R. And conduct—excluding from both a Judge’s Immigration decisions are re- courtroom the courthouse—falls appeal the BIA: division of viewed immunity, A. scope judge within the .that apart separate the EOIR from the judicial capacity is unenti- acting within his Immigration Chief Office immunity—and, judicial tled absolute authority supervisory no over with direct thus, subject liabili to suit and is civil Judges. Immigration See 8 C.F.R. . ty-only when he acts “clear ab Immigration § also Judges are in- 1003.1. Stump, of all jurisdiction.” sence 435 agency dependent responsible 356-57, Here, 98 S.Ct. 1099. U.S. enforcing immigration the federal laws: Judge Cassidy must whether determine Citizenship and Immi- United States and, so, in his if capacity acted gration Services. See United States he absence whether acted “dear op Department Justice, Executive Office jurisdiction." https://www. Review, (last justice.gov/eoir/about-office visited 14 determining judge’s whether 2017). these structural December Given “judicial” immunity, act for purposes immigration safeguards, proceedings do (1) the act is we consider whether one potential (2) for institu- involve the same normally performed by judges, Cleavinger: recognized in party dealing was tional bias complaining judicial capacity. arid the in his “relationship keeper' judge between with the Id. 362, kept.” S.Ct. 1099. element, the first

About lic—and to exclude Plaintiff from the has instructed we look courtroom—were decisions made in the di- act, to “the nature function rect exercise of-the function. Waco, not the act itself.” Mireles v. If Judge Cassidy ordered Plaintiff 9, 13, L.Ed.2d removed from the court he building, (1991) omitted); (quotations also For see engaged performing also a judicial func White, 219, 229, rester v. 484 108 U.S. Judges obligation tion. have an to maintain (1988) (the 538, 98 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 555 control the over courthouse and over the immunity analysis Court’s by informed courthouse'; of persons in the conduct the performed”). “the the If nature function removing issuance an order persons examine, instead, to we were the factual from the courthouse in the interest particular being details of act chal the maintaining ordinary control is an such lenged, any judge “then of a mistake examp performed by judges: function authority, of his a would become excess le,8 person might a comply where be act, ‘nonjudicial’ an or improper because ing or might imped with a court order be act cannot be to normal erroneous said be Sheppard ing judicial proceeding.9 the Cf. Mireles, ly performed by judge.” a 502 Maxwell, 333, 358, v. 384 U.S. 86 S.Ct. 12, 112 (determining U.S. S.Ct. 286 1507, (“the (1966) 16 600 L.Ed.2d court pertinent the “act” was “the function premises room subject and courthouse are directing police bring to officers counsel court”); to the control United States pending a case before “a the court”: not Smith, 569, 567, (2d 426 v. F.3d 576 Cir. judge’s police carry direction to to officers 2005) (stressing importance force”). judicial out a order with excessive judiciary—not Service—play the Marshals judicial anything, “If it immunity means controlling primary role in access to judge deprived means that a not be will courtrooms); buildings containing federal because the action he took was immunity Ulan, 787, States v. 421 F.2d United 788 in error or excess his authority.” (2d 1970) Cir. from (appeal a conviction 12-13, (quotations Id. at 112 S.Ct. 286 a assaulting interfering Dep with U.S. omitted). alterations Marshal,‘which uty arose a after Judge Cassidy’s par- judge decisions close court Marshals to clear ordered immigration hearings pub- ticular the courtroom and escort demonstra trative, functions), necessarily legislative, 8. These circumstances are not and executive (or Harrington, 246, circumstances which access See Barrett v. 130 also F.3d particular person) might access de- (6th ("a a 1997) judge 256 n.11 in a Cir. acts proceedings nied to court or court- a exercising judicial capacity control of when judicial house—in the exercise of the function courtroom," v, Sheppard judge’s (citing acting judge judicial capacity. a his Maxwell, 333, 1507, 384 86 16 S.Ct. Gregory Thompson, (1966))); L.Ed.2d 600 v. reject position judge’s 9. We a order 59, (9th 1974) (denying 500 F.2d 64 Cir. abso ing person a a removed from courthouse con personally judge lute to a who used administrative, stitutes or legislative, exec physical force remove observer from the (apart judicial) utive from a function. A performed "normally" by act courtroom—an judge's authority to control his courtroom— explaining sheriff and, bailiff—but. necessarily, the environment surround "obligation” judges "prptect have an ing directly his courtroom—stems from his .the sanctity dignity proceed judge. background, courtroom as a For duties see Forres White, have, instead, 538, 219, ings” judge and that the should ter 108 98 v. (1988) (discussing sheriff to escort L.Ed.2d 555 distinction summoned observer courtroom). judge’s between acts and a from adminis 1306 U.S., Stump, 435 courthouse); gration hearing.11 Richman v.

tors outside Sheahan, (7th 2008) (a tending 880 Cir. 1099 factor F.3d 98 S.Ct. (a of a judge the son court ordered state judge that a acted his show within contesting a traffic ticket leave woman capacity is if “the confrontation arose di and, refused, building he the court when immediately out of a visit to the rectly and to arrest security officers ordered court capacity” (citing in his official with judge United v. contempt); man for States Brown, v. approval McAlester F.2d Brugnara, (9th 1198, 1205 Cir. 856 F.3d 1972))). We stress (district bellig judge ordered immunity analy purposes that—for our 2017) building); juror erent removed (and do not de need- decide sis—we Bush, Ariz. P.2d State cide) decision, in Judge Cassidy’s (Ariz. 1986) (“the judge trial has instance, Plaintiff removed have controlling responsibility primary building error: from the court was without in spectators of the courtroom and conduct Judge Cassidy, pertinent that on the after and, “may necessary, if the courthouse” noon, of acting scope within the' his was of clear the courthouse courtroom and the with Plain judicial capacity when he dealt intimidating may be witnesses who those tiff is adequate. personnel.”).10 or other court vie Next, reject contention Plaintiffs Moreover, Judge Cassidy’s or supposed Judge Cassidy that in the acted “clear building to remove from the der Plaintiff jurisdiction.” parties of all do absence immediately out of’ directly “arose Judges dispute Immigration not that have in Judge dealings Cassidy’s with Plaintiff authority hearing express to order a closed directing Plaintiff capacity: his .judicial circumstances, public to the under certain only to his court moments earlier leave including purpose protecting “for the of closing public the immi room after to the though flatly denies she refused no claim of absolute Plaintiff that 10. These cases involve Thus, courtroom, particular immunity. dispute the that to leave the she does may facts questioned judge’s authority facts of these cases from the differ she there that appeal change our involved in this does not to in the court- or that she continued remain analysis. cases We cite these room—despite Judge Cassidy’s requests for judges proposition for the an obli- have warning her he summon to leave would - gation maintain control over their court- to Judge guards to remove her—until Cas- after room illustrate that the and courthouse: to sidy had left courtroom himself and he ordering person—including a mem- act calling security. appeared to Plaintiff be to demonstrator, press, ber of or other ob- leaving entering Upon her the courtroom and building is server—removed from a court one Immigration lobby, Court Plaintiff contin- performed "normally" by judges. complain ued to to a staff member court Cassidy’s legality Judge decision about favor, Construing record Plaintiff's in ’ hearing. to close the She was still sup- Cassidy’s we cannot conclude documenting process of incident when posed have removed from order to Plaintiff guards arrived to escort her out the build- distinct, building separate the court was ing. story on how the Given Plaintiff’s events request overlap, with no from his that Plain- progressed, important see no clear-cut tiff leave The two events were his courtroom. Judge Cassidy’s break the train between separated most—by fifteen in time—at about pertinent supposed two orders: the events Furthermore, Judge Cassidy minutes. when . single-afternoon’s are—tem- this occurrence supposedly or- returned to chambers and his logically—linked to porally and Plaintiff's guards remove Plaintiff from dered Judge Cassidy in front' of words and conduct building, just had directed Plaintiff twice he closing pro- and his order certain courtroom leave the courtroom and told Plaintiff that ceedings public. guards he to remove her. Al- could order witnesses, might or parties, person perceived interest.” to threaten the § Again, integrity proceedings. 8 C.F.R. 1003.27. we need See The law (and decide) today long that, accepted grantor do not has decide “[t]he decision, another, Judge Cassidy’s anything grants that also with- instance, hearings in out perti- thing granted to close the which would be use- Legal Peloubet, nent was correct: we cases decide less.” S.S. A Collection Equity Judges (Rothman possess authority Maxims Law and Dykes Hosemann, 1985) (1884) hearings. (“Cuicunque aliquis quid close See con- 1985) cedit, (reject- 776 F.2d concederé videtur et id sine res quo argument judge ipsa potuit.”). judge’s authority that a esse non A ing acted jurisdiction” of all “clear absence when he maintain control his courtroom exr Sheppard, ruling: judge’s building. issued an erroneous tends the court (a ruling may have error not 384 U.S. at been “does S.Ct. 1507 case power fact that it within which the affect the his a trial discussed determination.”). “duty” “responsibility” make court’s con- gatherers trol news stationed inside the addition, Judge Cassidy even if throughout courtroom and the court build- express au- statutory regulatory lacked ing). thority to order removed building, Judge Cassidy judges in no acted that their When believe immuni- ty jurisdiction” doing protection private “clear of all in from lawsuits can absence Immigration evaporate in or in Judges express so. do have novel situations heated “regulate to authority calling judge the course” of re- controversies for a to act 1240.1(c), discretion, hearings. very §§ for moval See 8 with reason immu- C.F.R. the triggers obligation. nity judges begin 1240.9. This is undercut: authority think not demands, authority, the has of what the is Based on EOIR law but what recognized Immigration judge, personally, “that an easiest and best for the at times family firm for the Judge must be and decisive main- and finances—and independence jeopardized. immunity tain courtroom control.” is For See The United Department protect judges be useful from intimi- Justice, States of Executive Immigration threatened, personally-burden- dation Ethics and Review, Office for Immigration judge’s Professionalism Guide some connected lawsuits Judges, discretion, https://www.justice.gov/sites/ Supreme at acts of has Court juris- of scope judge’s told us “the default/fíles/eoir/legacy/2013/05/23/ EthicsandProfessionalismGuideforIJs.pdf. broadly”: diction must be construed not of

judge deprived immunity merely is say—as of We decline a matter authority. he in of his because acts excess Immigration Judge’s Stump, an authori 356-57, law—that See 435 U.S. 98 S.Ct. obligation to control ty and maintain over if 1099. we are mistaken about So—even his courtroom at the threshold of vanishes perimeter the exact of an Immigration oppose the courtroom door. an We such Judge’s authority—we Judge conclude Instead, impractical, sharp-edged rule. an Cassidy did not act in the “clear absence of Immigration Judge’s express power over jurisdiction” directing all that'Plaintiff implies necessarily pow building; his courtroom from given be removed the court person from the on er remove courtroom the assumed state affairs the after- (and building): April enough a noon connection example, court when identically gration Judges are situated. present.12 judicial proceedings was n ' accept And point. take the we We acting with- Cassidy was Because reasoning in Bolin some of the would judicial capacity—and not in’his Judges. apply to the case jurisdiction”—we af- “clear absence all important do But the most ideas we think determination that firm the district court’s is on apply, the same and conclusion to the

Judge Cassidy was absolute entitled injunctive immunity bars relief line: of- immunity judge; against Immigration Judges, mjwnctive About relief protects Judge Absolute time, weight of trou- Litigation puts Cassidy Plaintiffs Bivens claim both 'from ble, expense judge and attacked seeking money damages also the claim and damages plaintiff seeks whether the v. Story, injunctive action, relief. Bolin injunction at'the of the To end 2000).13 1234, 1240-42 (11th F.3d entangled a distraetioh litigation Also, injunction, Bolin, plaintiff if a more. wins immu- decided that time, judge of more faces threat nity injunctive can bar relief as claims for trouble, defending against úp damages. plays expense well as for Plaintiff judge is judges Bolin accusations later viola- (including Article III involved faces Judges) injunction Immi- points Circuit out that threat police excessive force to contends the build- officers to use seize that—because (a ing security plaintiff lawyer appear her from guards who who failed to escorted had courtroom) employees building bring plaintiff timely Were the, Justice—Judge Among Department EOIR or the forcibly judge's into courtroom. Cassidy. rejected absence acted the “clear things, other the. jurisdiction” supposedly when he ordered judge's the fact order assertion that that the security guards to remove Plaintiff by police officers out carried somehow building. judge's "executive” char rendered the acter, act 12-13, (liken 112 S.Ct. 286 security guards question of whether the ing judge’s police the direction to the officers law, obliged supposed by carry out were .to for an to of issuance warrant a “judge’s Judge Cassidy is a different direction home,” á executive search officer to which Cassidy gave question Judge the than whether “unquestionably” the Court as described an acting judicial capacity direction in While his act). jurisdiction” or in the “clear absence of all Moreover, judge ex- even the the to extent example, purposes immunity. of For ratify- authority authorizing his in or ceeded judge correctly suspect call on that a could force, ing use of the officers' excessive the private-citizen passersby in maintain- to assist judge’s Supreme the Court concluded act— ing the peace order courtroom around judge's jurisdic- very aid of the circumstances, “taken the private some these Whether not tak- tion over a before him”—was matter obliged might be to do so be citizens would jurisdiction. en of Id. at in thé clear absence judge questionable. that would But be the 13, 112 S.Ct. 286. acting judicial capacity clearly not in a jurisdiction the absence- of would not- all has no that she all, Plaintiff's .other contention questionable at Judge remedy Cassidy's is to conduct review Cassidy authority If had no official over process is inaccurate: formal administrative building guards, security the that circum against filing complaints Im- available for change stance does not decision about our migration Judge. of Waco, 9, herself Plaintiff availed immunity. 502 Mireles v. U.S. by remedy, 286, (1991), That result reached the the 9 112 S.Ct. 116 L.Ed.2d instance, process, pleasing was not to that a state Court concluded court process is inad- capacity—and Plaintiff does establish judge not within his acted equate possible as a check on “complete jurisdic of misconduct not in the absence Judges, judge allegedly two tion”—when the ordered

1309 contempt complaint A punishments, including of incar- contain must “a plain of short maybe. it ceration stress that is statement claim We entitled, showing pleader is- to private parties instituting threat of actions 8(a)(2). R. Civ. relief.” Fed-. P. To survive (and just proceedings possibili- claim, for failure to state “a dismissal judge losing ty party that the will be a plaintiffs obligation provide grounds actions/proceedings) those carries requires his entitlement relief more chilling it potential judges with as conclusions, than labels and a formula w;ork. they ic recitation the elements of a cause hauling judges . of this None into Corp. court action do.” Bell Atl. will v. Twombly, parties likely by private 544, 555, to advance seems 127 S.Ct. 1955, (2007) making goal fearless decision L.Ed.2d 929 (quotations 167 omitted). Instead, '“a facing obligation complaint must con judges make diffi- matter, tain factual accepted sufficient in intensely decisions contentious situ- cult true, a claim state to relief- protect strong ations. Without face;” Iqbal, plausible on its Ashcroft work, judges easy in their it too would be 129 S.Ct. (and judges’ many judges, for the critics if (2009) omitted). (quotation L.Ed.2d To critics)- they long, have served have Bivens, state.a claim for relief “a under judges, by litigation, hound threatened plead plaintiff must that each Government- point actual interference—con- through defendant, official the official’s scious decision unconscious—in judicial actions, own individual violated the has making. Bolin The rule case covers Id, Constitution.” Immigration Judges, too. added). (emphasis only for Mooney is liable her own mis- Against Remaining B. Claims Individu- conduct, any. Mooney’s if About individual al Defendants conduct, complaint al- amended Plaintiffs April leges only on EOIR’s Damages 1. Bivens Claims affairs, an email to officer sent sev- Plaintiff challenges next the dis employees—one of then eral EOIR whom dismissal, pursuant trict Fed. R. court’s Mooney—notifying email to forwarded the 12(b)(6), damages Civ. P. her Bivens them that was at the Atlanta Im- against Mooney.14 dismissing claims migration Alleging passive mere Court. claims, Plaintiffs deter receipt alleges email misconduct allegations mined that Plaintiffs Mooney’s is insufficient part and complaint Mooney-violated were insufficient to show that Plaintiffs con- show that rights.15 'complaint Mooney stitutional Plaintiffs had violated Constitution. brief, appeal. heading people not before us on See appellate 14. In other are Plaintiffs Sapuppo Co., portion argument for this of her includes "De v. Allstate Floridian Ins. (11th 2014) Mooney ("[A]n appel fendant the Other Federal Defen Cir. F.3d Likewise, of dants.” in the "Statement abandons a claim when he either makes lant Argument” "Summary Issues” of sec only passing references to or it in a it raises brief, tions of Plaintiff’s Plaintiff to both refers argu supporting manner perfunctory without Mooney government other and to "the defen authority.”). ments and references, Despite passing dants.” these n (as complaint We read Plaintiff’s she however, 15. have argu no substantive Plaintiff raises it) lawyers had and: have and her amended challenging of her Bivens ment the dismissal favor, allegations in damages against construed the her any claims factual defendant other result, “plain about Mooney. against no statement” how than find As a the claims Injunctive 2. for allegation Claims Relief only contains one other factual Mooney Mooney: identifying specific to complaint, sought In her Plaintiff Director for the Office EOIR’s “Assistant relief, enjoining injunctive permanent who, Programs” par- Management unlawfully excluding “from defendants times, “responsible for securi- ticular was Cassidy’s from Defendant court Plaintiff To space supervisor facilities.” be a ty, excluding, removing “from or room” and addition, un- wrongful. is not Plaintiffs causing the exclusion or removal of Plain conclusory assertions that De- supported any facility tiff from federal within generally—including Mooney— fendants jurisdiction, deportation/re Court’s where “caused, in, condoned, or cov- participated conducted, hearings as to which moval are alleged wrongs also fail to up” various ered right has a of access.” Plaintiff lawful pleading satisfy the federal standard. The district court dismissed lack Iqbal, 678, 129 556 U.S. at S.Ct. 1937 standing injunctive (“Threadbare Plaintiffs claim re- the elements recitals action, supported by against government conclu- lief the individual de- cause of mere suffice.”). statements, fendants, sory including Mooney. do the dis- Given earlier that trict court’s determination “factual more enhancements” Without allege Plaintiff failed to facts sufficient Mooney, complaint most hints about that demonstrate each defendant had com- only possibility at some Plaintiffs enti- violation, a constitutional the dis- mitted against no Mooney: tlement to relief show- Plaintiff also trict court that concluded ing per Rule 8 that Plaintiff is entitled. See Twombly, requisite past or failed demonstrate id.; 550 U.S. at 127 S.Ct. injury personal necessary threat future 1955. affirm the district court’s Rule We 12(b)(6) standing. to establish dismissal.16 allegations satisfy Mooney’s might of fact individual conduct fact caused forward that pleading requirement, sug alleged injuries in this For the federal Plaintiffs case. gest allegations allegation particular or are example, words Plaintiff has made fact, instructed, directed, necessary By Mooney, a claim relief. or or state allega way, complaint also contains no dered someone to escort out Atlanta, Mooney alleged tion was stationed in building. Nor has Plaintiff present pertinent day, on the Mooney actually prior knowledge Atlanta had complained-of or wrongful building otherwise witnessed the removal from the Plaintiff’s Keating City

but Cf. conduct. failed intervene. v. Miami, (11th 2010) 598 F.3d 763-64 Cir. (allegations approved supervising appeal, officers On Plaintiff seeks to demonstrate permitting Mooney’s alleged orders officers to dis personal subordinate involvement in the charge weapons, offi relying deposi directed subordinate constitutional violations court, however, discharge weapons, cers to were sufficient to testimony. The district satisfy pleading requirement against because Plaintiff's Bivens claims dismissed 12(b)(6), allegations Mooney pursuant established a causal connection without Rule supervising considering complaint. between the officers’ conduct and outside the material Reno, plaintiffs’ alleged injuries); ruling, reviewing Gonzalez the district court’s there 2003) (a fore, allegations 325 F.3d caus we also to factual look supervisor's complaint al connection between a conduct to determine Plain Speaker alleged may violation constitutional tiff stated a claim for relief. v. Prevention, by support be "established which an facts CDC & 623 United States HHS 1371, 2010) (“In (11th supervisor appeals inference the sub that directed 1379 Cir. F.3d 12(b)(6) dismissals, unlawfully generally to act or knew that the is ordinates of Rule it true unlawfully scope subordinates would act and failed of the review must be to that the limited so.’’). doing complaint.” (quotation stop to them from We these four corners of cite omitted)). straight examples explain to the kinds

1311 Declaratory Judgment III establish Article C. “[T]o allege standing, plaintiff personal a must Plaintiff contends the district injury fairly traceable to defendant’s court its in declining abused discretion likely to allegedly unlawful conduct and grant declaratory judgment her claim. Dep’t requested by redressed relief.” Declaratory Judgment The Act v. United States House Commerce on “unique confers federal courts a Representatives, 316, 329, 525 U.S. 119 deciding substantial discretion in (1999). 765, 142 797 To satis S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Wilton, rights of litigants.” to declare the standing requirement, a fy plaintiff this 286, 515 U.S. at 115 S.Ct. 2137. “The stat injunctive seeking prospective relief must discretion, ute’s textual commitment to “allege appears facts from which it there is of leeway [the breadth Court] a substantial likelihood he will suffer always suggest, has it to understood distin injury the future.” Strickland v. Alexan guish declaratory judgment the- context der, 876, 2014). 883 F.3d other areas of the law which con cepts 286-87, surface.” discretion Id. appeal, already we have deter- 115 S.Ct. 2137. allege Plaintiff facts mined that failed a constitutional sufficient demonstrate Declaratory Judgment The Act past. by Mooney violation has been “enabling characterized Act,” alleged giving has also no facts that would dem- the district courts discretion 287-88, grant form of “substantial that she new relief. Id. at onstrate likelihood” however, Act, S.Ct. The confers injury “fairly traceable” to would suffer right upon litigant” no “absolute has thus Mooney in the future. Plaintiff imposes duty no on the district courts. Id. standing III to establish Article failed action Thus—even when civil satisfies enjoin Mooney. seek See id. subject jurisdictional pre matter federal challenges To the extent that Plaintiff requisites—a district court still maintains injunctive the dismissal relief claim her about “whether discretion and when Administrators,”17 against “Other her ar- Declaratory an action under the entertain gument already also fails. As we have 2137; Judgment 115 S.Ct. Act.” Id. noted, Plaintiff, appeal, on raises no Ins. Co. of see also Brillhart Excess meaningful challenge to the district Amer., S.Ct. court’s that Plaintiff determination failed (1942) (“Although District L.Ed. past injury to show a constitutional jurisdiction had suit under the caused Nor these other defendants. Act, Declaratory Judgments it Federal allege did facts sufficient demon- she compulsion no under exercise likely per- that she is to suffer strate jurisdiction.”). declaratory judg “In the injury in sonal the future that either context, principle ment normal fairly traceable to an individual defen- adjudicate courts should claims federal or that is re- unlawful conduct dant’s jurisdiction yields their to consider within requested injunction. dressable practicality ations of and wise ad Wilton, committed error 515 U.S. at ministration.” dismissing Plaintiffs relief must be injunctive 2137. And mindful bearing “facts usefulness of the standing. claim lack Osuna, Keller, Smith, Cynthia Gary MaryBeth 17. We construe the term "Other Administra- Holder, Long, Eugene to mean Defendants Eric Darren Summers. tors” Juan complaint in sought in remedy, and the fit- relief Plaintiffs and declaratory judgment resolution, response Plaintiffs district court’s pecu- the case for are ness the that, order, say the we liarly grasp.” cannot court’s] district show-cause [the within unreasonably 289,115 S.Ct. district -court characterized 2137. See id. at s “amor- .request as “unclear” and mind, Plaintiff this law in now consider With accept and We that a abstract.” phous ruling in case. the district court’s this. definitely plaintiffs failure state- and seeming- included two Plaintiffs complaint sought consistently declaratory relief the (cid:127) declaratory re- requests for ly different deny.such is in itself basis sufficient Plaintiff appeal, On asserts however, lief.18 discretionary declaratory judg- relief as a failing in the district erred only ment. out in following relief set the consider complaint: Plaintiffs Furthermore, district court the that, require judgment [the court] That in committed error clear is hearing deportation/removal where determining requested the relief to the partially completely provide do concrete “would little to relief closed spe- immigration the make public, judge parties and clarification the findings documenting the record may' cific on declaratory judgment “[A] case.” that a for closure order the reasons an ‘actual contro be issued the case ” Malowney reviewing court can determine whether versy.’ De v. Fed. Collection posit Grp., less re- and whether closure was lawful 193 F.3d .1347 1999). existed. controversy strictive “The must be alternatives definite concrete, touching legal the relations show- court’s response the district having legal of parties interests.” adverse order, put request cause Plaintiff Haworth, Aetna Life Ins. Co. different-'way: judgment ain declaratory 227, 240-41, 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 hearings “that administered (1937). á “It must real and substantial public may be not be closed [EOIR] controversy admitting specific relief immigration presiding unless and until the character, through a a conclusive decree of public on the deter judge makes a record' advising distinguished opinion an is under mination that warranted closure (some upon § law hypothetical what would emphasis add- C.F.R. 1003.27.” ed).19 set facts.” S.Ct. 461. Id. . matter, no one light .disputes—that stress—and As initial We immigration already pre- hearings foi are evolving—-requests the different—and 18. complaint—ti requests import VII of The com- In Count Plaintiff's "Declaratory Judgment”—Plaintiff plaint to the response tled show-cause Plaintiff, sought "that timing findings a declaration The order not the same. right, press United have under the signifi- response would be a called for in the law, attend, and federal States Constitution on restriction cant additional observe', report'on deporta notes on take restricting Judges top requirement hearings, to the author extent tion/removal Immigration Judges express must make and federal ized Constitution law.” timing requirement findings. ex- Relief,” Complaint’s "Prayer go beyond press-findings requirement both requested set both declaration out record that simply make a would duty appeal: VII asserted on Count and the relief justify of the courtroom. closure Immigration Judge be declaration findings required rec specific to make on the documenting closing ord the reasons immigration hearing public. to the discretion”, open public. deciding to the sumptively substantial § jurisdiction circumstances to That exercise C.F.R. 1003.27.20 the over Plaintiffs Immigration Judge may declaratory an close claim judgment. which for In the regulation light of hearing already by are the a limited substantial deference afforded significantly necessity district courts undercuts the and is about’what useful and requested necessary of Plaintiffs declara- the declaratory usefulness judgment context, accept tion. the district con- court’s clusion. Moreover, this one' in case which hearings AFFIRMED.

immigration were closed and obviously the record is facts which without WILLIAMS, Judge, District concurring: Instead, justify to the closures. sufficient Although result, facts exist record to the basis I today’s show concur in I hearings upon were closed to separately, which the and write scope address the reviewing body from could deter- judicial which the immunity absolute standard closure, to pursuant mine whether by Specifically, majority. articulated the I 1003.27, § C.F.R. was analysis warranted. expands the.protec- believe their tions further judicial than is that, court aware district also was necessary beyond this .decide case and relief, the by means court declaratory Court, the set boundaries the being immigration asked instruct First, to discharge disagree how their duties: I tribunals with the blanket asser- separation powers point judicial immunity a sensitive tion that purposes, things. other the among ordering persons Given circum- court- removed the stances, obligation the court judges district conclude house is an an and .could dispute, by judges.1 the nature of the properly ordinary performed function sure, uncertainty which To danger, ordering person the be removed being in- “ordinary” attention was called was be an court’s from courthouse can person re- the sufficient demand declaration function dis- where short, threatens, rupts, In Plaintiff has failed to or quested. impedes otherwise showing satisfy judicial proceeding judge. difficult burden before Ab- “unique ongoing its an abused sent this connection to ’ Proceeding open provides expressly 1003.27 20. Section the Record shall be any hearings, hearings, public. proceeding an before other than exclusion "[a]ll Immigration Judge concerning an abused open public except” be to the shall these child, hearing the Record alien circumstances: Proceeding, .public, shall .be closed to the facilities, (a) Depending upon physical (d)Proceedings before an Immigration Judge may place reasonable public shall be if infor- closed upon the number in attendance limitations subject protective to a mation order under any being given priority one time with 1003.46, § has filed seal been under which press general public; over 1003.31(d), § pursuant may be consid- (b) purpose protecting For the wit- ered, nesses, interest, parties, public or the § 8 C.F.R. 1003.27. Immigration Judge may limit attendance hearing. hold a closed majority support 1. The cited cases (c) any Immigra- proceeding before proposition all involve who individuals Judge concerning alien ongoing an abused proceedings disturbed in the court- . hearing of Pro- spouse, adjudicatory Record room or obstructed otherwise ceeding judi- judge. to the unless shall closed matters None address before hearing spouse agrees immunity. cial the abused immigration matter however, presiding over the “nature proceeding, to exit Professor he ordered Stevens when necessarily ju- is not performed function” apparently failed his courtroom. She 219, White, 484 U.S. Forrester v. dicial. See Cassidy her re comply, IJ ordered 226-29, 638, L.Ed.2d 556 S.Ct. his building carry out moval from the judi- (1988) truly (distinguishing between removal initial order. Professor Stevens’ may on that judges cial alcts and “functions immediately” out directly and “arose thus perform,” assigned law occasion ongoing during pro of an order issued an although judges may be holding that case, If not howev ceeding. that were may “ordinarily”—hire obligated to—and er, merely order were and the removal staff, they are fire them individuals “temporally to Professor Stevens’ related” for these immunity to absolute not entitled courtroom, then Cassidy’s IJ presence administrative, judicial than deci- rather “meaningfully be dis Cassidy could not IJ sions). clerk, law tinguished” any employee, from case, according to Ste- In Professor this officer, guard, or security enforcement allegations, she was removed own vens’ similarly initi building manager who could imme- building after she from the did building, from ate her removal Cassidy’s diately comply with IJ order immunity apply. Forres judicial would his courtroom a sealed matter could exit so 229, 108 ter, 538.2 484 U.S. S.Ct. that, such, on this agree I proceed. As although agree I that on this Finally, record, of Professor Cassidy’s removal IJ judicial Cassidy is record IJ entitled function, was a normal Stevens ques I immunity, am about concerned during and as because he issued order remedy for his tion of Professor Stevens’ part ongoing proceeding. of an Bradley v. Fish conduct. The decision Second, agree I the re although er, 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 13 Wall. 80 U.S. directly and immedi moval order “arose (1872), established the doctrine which dealing ately Cassidy’s with out IJ explained that judicial immunity, absolute disagree I capacity,” Plaintiff in his further designed to the doctrine was conclusion, reaching this we should independent judicia interest temporal proximi rely on a metric of the legitimate ry, expense sometimes at the minutes—be- ty—approximately fifteen 349; Pierson grievances. Id. at individual Professor Cassidy’s 547, 554, IJ order Ray, 386 87 S.Ct. v. U.S. tweep (1967). courtroom and her remov exit the Bradley Stevens 18 L.Ed.2d 288 view, IJ Cassi- building. my from aggrieved al individ accepted those costs in a engaged judicial system with Professor Stevens itself dy uals because any temporal indi judicial capacity protecting not based means of provided other week, consequences minutes, hour, rights: “Against the day, a vidual test ¡(15 action, irregular etc.), [judges’] erroneous or but he on the bench because 219, 229, White, ing parte Virginia, 100 25 L.Ed. Ex Forrester v. (1880)); Thompson, (1988), Gregory also see the Su- 98 L.Ed.2d 555 1974) (holding judges’ 500 F.2d 64-65 preme decisions to Court held that forcibly expelled judge "judicial” who himself because hire and are not fire staff litigant was not entitled from his courtroom judge probation officer who hires or fires a "a immunity "choice because his distinguished to absolute meaningfully be from a cannot normally per- perform an act attorney similar who hires and fires assistant district not result attorneys, any formed a sheriff bailiff'should or indeed from other simply receiving ... in his absolute responsible Executive Branch official who is time.”). (cit- judge he was at the because making employment decisions.” such proceeding, potential whatever motives has the undermine consti provided private law has parties right nu tutional open to public pro access remedies, merous and to those remedies ceedings, I respectfully concur the out must, cases, they Fisher, in such resort.” only. come Wall., However,, at 354. the facts- -of amply case demonstrate that At lanta Court’s administrative

procedures not provide did an avenue

meaningful safeguard review Professor rights, especially light

Stevens’ her history Cassidy with IJ and the Executive Office Review.3 INC., Amgen Manufacturing AMGEN judicial immunity The doctrine of is an Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants one, important opinions narrowing v. thoughtfully must doctrine circum token, By however, scribed. the same opin INC., Defendant-Appellee SANDOZ ions expanding the doctrine com demand 2015-1499 that, I agree mensurate caution. on this record, Cassidy may IJ invoke im United Appeals, States Court of munity removing for his order Professor Federal Circuit. building. from the But that Stevens conclu Decided: December sion is based on a far narrower under standing qualify- of what acts “truly

judicial acts” and are therefore entitled to judicial immunity.

absolute Because I be majority’s analysis lieve of IJ Cassidy’s judicial immunity entitlement to majority personal, upcoming does not address the Stevens’ visit to Atlanta obtain non-judicial allegedly public reasons January Cassidy motivated records. IJ (in Atlanta, GA) Cassidy IJ to remove Professor Stevens from emailed Assistant Chief (in Church, VA) building nearly Immigration Judge and that en- involved Falls apparatus notify visiting tire of the EOIR. See him that Harris Professor Stevens was Deveaux, 1986) 780 F.2d facility Georgia. April the Stewart (recognizing judges’ may immigration acts be enti- Professor Stevens visited an fa- arrival, they tled cility Lumpkin, Georgia. Upon if from result her lives, private, nonjudicial in their immediately the Court "events Administrator emailed personal in which they events EOIR ha[ve] relations Ste- staff that Professor n stake.”). Though they acknowledge that vens "want[s] access view the court hear- published deporta- ing-today According “Plaintiff had criticisms ... advise!” Please record, proceedings tion in general Immigra- other individual ever attracted .had Cassidy's performance William this kind of attention EOIR officials. from Moreover, particular,” they expulsion fail to mention that based on about a week after lawsuit, criticisms—including piece giving employee these that de- rise to this in'the Cassidy, mistakenly deporting Department nounced IJ of Justice’s Public Office Affairs Cassidy colleagues an American regarding "[pjossi- citizen—IJ and EOIR emailed his banning blogger immigration tracked officials monitored and Professor Ste- ble proceedings vens' visits to courtroom over These the claim court.” facts animate example, process the Southeast. For in June available to Professor was Stevens just "displeasing” arguably Atlanta Administrator nineteen emailed but inade- notifying quate EOIR Cassidy’s officials them of as a check Professor on IJ misconduct.

Case Details

Case Name: Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Dec 15, 2017

Citation: 877 F.3d 1293

Docket Number: 16-12007

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.