James L. PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 30244 Summary Calendar.*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 12, 1970.
Gordon & Cleveland, Charles Cleveland, Birmingham, Ala., Love & Love, Huel M. Love, Sr., Talladega, Ala., for appellant.
Gaines & Powers, by Ralph D. Gaines, Jr., Talladega, Ala., for appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James L. Perkins brоught an action for damages in the district court against a judge of the Probate Court of Talladega County, Alаbama,1 for alleged wrongful commitment to a state mental institution. The district court granted a defense motiоn to dismiss on the grounds that the acts complained of constituted a judicial function rather than a ministerial funсtion and therefore under Alabama law the probate judge was immune from civil liability. Broom v. Douglass,
Perkins alleged that on November 7, 1969, his wife filed in the Probate Court of Talladega County, Alabama, an applicatiоn to commit him to the Alabama State Hospital for the Insane. It was alleged that no hearing was held, and that Perkins did not receive any notice of the commitment proceedings. On November 17, 1969, the Honorable Jоe J. Phillips, Sr., judge of the Probate Court, signed a certificate of the mental disqualification of Perkins and ordered him committed to the state mental hospital. Perkins was arrested and taken to the hospital where he remained until December 19, 1969, when he was released on a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama.
Appellant urges that the Probate Court did not have jurisdiction over the cоmmitment proceedings and this alleged lack of jurisdiction deprives the probate judge of civil immunity. Appеllant also contends that the commitment was a ministerial act and not a judicial act, and that therefore under Alabama law the probate judge was not immune from civil liability. These arguments are without merit.
The Probаte Court is a court of original and general jurisdiction. Title 13, Section 278, Code of Alabama. The statutory provisions for commitment to a state mental hospital are established in Title 45 of the Code of Alabama, Recompiled 1958. Section 205 of that Title provides:
§ 205. Insanity defined which renders person eligible as patient. — A рerson shall be adjudged insane who has been found by a proper court sufficiently deficient or defeсtive mentally to require that, for his own or others' welfare, he be moved to the insane hospital for restraint, care and treatment. Whether the person's mental abnormality is sufficiently grave to warrant such proсedure is always the question to be decided by the court.
Sections 208 and 210 of the same Chapter provide:
§ 208. Application to and of probate judge for admission of patient; contents of. — When a relative, friend, or other party interested desires to place a person as a patient in one of the state hospitals, he shall apply to the judge оf probate of the county in which the person resides, and the judge of probate, without delay, shall investigаte the case, by examining witnesses, or not, as he sees fit * * *.
§ 210. Certificate of probate judge for admission of patient; form and contents of. — When informed by the superintendent that the person can be receivеd as a patient, the judge of probate shall examine witnesses, at least one of whom shall be a рhysician, and fully investigate the facts of the case, either with or without a jury, and either with or without the presence in court of the person, the grade of whose mental disqualification is under investigation, according tо his discretion * * *.
The clear words of the statute grant the Probate Court jurisdiction over the applicatiоn for commitment. Assuming that the probate judge did not provide appellant with all of the procedural sаfeguards provided in the statute (a question which we do not decide), that would not destroy the jurisdiction of the сourt to hear and decide the case. Cf. Headley v. Ball,
It is equally clear that the action of the probate court on the application for commitment was a judicial function. In Rainey v. Ridgeway,
"Judicial power is authority, vested in some court, officer, or person, to hear and determine, when the rights of persons or property, or the propriety of doing an act, are the subject-matter of adjudication. Official action, the result of judgment or discretion, is a judicial act. The duty is ministerial, when the law, exacting its discharge, prescribes and defines the time, mode, and occasion of its performance with such cеrtainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion. Official action, the result of performing a certain and spеcific duty arising from fixed and designated facts, is a ministerial act".
We doubt the existence of many situations calling for more judicial discretion and decision-making talent than in the determination of the competency of a human being. The task calls for the court to look into the mind of an individual and determine his mental state under rules which are vague, difficult to apply, and necessarily imperfect. The function involved is unquestionably judiсial in nature. See in this regard Headley v. Ball, supra; Pickett v. Richardson, 1931,
The judgment of the lower court is
Affirmed.
Notes:
Notes
Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casuаlty Co. of New York, et al., 5th Cir. 1970,
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is the named defendant-appellee by virtuе of the company's issuance of a surety bond covering the probate judge, and its ultimate liability for any dаmages which might be awarded in this action. Title 13, Section 274 and Title 41, Section 50, Code of Alabama, Recompiled 1958