Malina v. Gonzales

officers with the to arrest individu- GARZA, EMILIO M. Before SMITH and green slip paper als. The handed RAINEY*, Judges, and District Circuit appear Malina to bailiff and told be- Judge: duty-judge May fore the on concern- ing traffic violations. Malina asked with RAINEY, Judge: D. District JOHN charged, what he had been and Gon- appeal an from the denial of a This is allude,” “fleeing responded zales with “re- to dismiss based on the district motion officer,” sisting “public endangerment,” an finding judge did court’s that a state district officer,” “disobeying driving,” an “reckless immunity not have for his actions. “leaving and the scene.” The added driving night home from work one While charges would convince Malina to 10, Plaintiff-Appellee Thomas on Interstate obey pull and over the next time order right moving passed to the of a slow flashing light pulled alongside anyone with a mo- Malina honked his horn and vehicle. not responded him. Malina that he did feel driver, tioned to the who was Defendant- stopping for unmarked vehicles comfortable Gonzales, Appellant Judge Douglas anyone buy can flashing lights because with Nineteenth Judicial District court for light. such Rouge, of East Baton to move out of Parish point, Judge cited Malina At this Gonzales the “fast” lane. him to five contempt and sentenced Upset by honking, Judge Gon- handcuffed, finger- jail. hours in Malina was light placed flashing zales red on his dash- printed, photographed, imprisoned. pursued Ma- Malina’s vehicle until board brought against Malina and his wife suit pulled lina over to the side of the road. capacity and in his official opened passenger side Gonzales response, Judge Gonzales individually. In car demanded to see door of Malina’s upon official a motion to dismiss based response, license. In Mali- filed Malina’s driver’s of the East- immunity. The District Court identifica- na asked to see Judge Gon- of Louisiana denied Malina his ern District tion. Gonzales showed him against claim motion to dismiss the he had the author- zales’ court I.D. and told Malina capacity, ground on ity off. his individual to arrest him. Malina then drove * Texas, by designation. sitting Judge of the Southern District of District potential raising more than a not entitled to carries immunity. Judge ap- judge’s now in a mind that to qualified frivolous concern proper might expose per- claim. We action him to peals the denial take part. part liability. reverse 764 F.2d at 297. In affirm sonal situations, immunity to be afforded some is I. of Review Standard though one or more of the McAlester even is not met. Id. factors The denial of a motion to dismiss ap raising claim of a colorable inquiry regarding The relevant the first exception pealable the collateral order under precise complained factor*—whether the finality requirement of 28 U.S.C. of is a normal function —is to exam Brooks, § Williams v. act, ine the “nature and function” of the — denied, Cir.1991), cert. Mireles, act at itself. U.S. (1992). -, 1996, 118 L.Ed.2d 592 -, 112 S.Ct. at 288-89. Court is to denial of a motion to The district court’s particular gen a look to the act’s relation to immunity grounds presents on a dismiss normally performed by judge. eral function a question de novo. Id. reviewable Id. Except for the issuance of the con Immunity II. Judicial tempt sentencing, citation and the none of judicial immunity Absolute extends judicial Gonzales’ actions were acts for judicial performed to all acts that are not in immunity purposes. The first three inci jurisdiction. the clear absence of all Adams closely general dents are not related to a Cir.1985), (5th 294, McIlhany, 764 F.2d 297 officers, judicial judges, Peace not function. denied, 1101, 106 rt. U.S. S.Ct. ce stop highway, prosecu on the motorists (1986). Thus, 883, judge 88 L.Ed.2d 918 tors, judges, judicial machinery in set the (1) for actions has no taken outside by charging motion someone with a crime. (2) judicial capacity, for actions that his charging It is well settled that a defendant is nature, judicial in in are but occur the com function, judicial prosecutorial not a func jurisdiction. plete of all absence Mireles v. Vanderwater, Lopez tion. See 620 F.2d —Waco, -, -, 286, S.Ct. denied, 1229, Cir.), cert. (1991). 288, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 Gonzales’ (1980). 1028, 601, separate actions form four incidents. The Additionally, Judge private use of stop highway. first is the The second unofficially an officer to summon Malina is an Gonzales’use of officer to unoffi act, judicial closely not a and is not related to cially Malina. summon The third is the judicial general Consequently, function. “crimes,” charging of Malina with various judicial immunity Judge Gonzales can claim and the fourth is the issuance of the con summons, stop, nor neither tempt jail citation and five hour sentence. charging. determining In whether however, can, Judge Gonzales claim “judicial nature,” in Gonzales’ actions were judicial immunity for the issuance of the (1) this Court considers four factors: wheth jail contempt citation and the five hour sen precise complained er the of is a normal tence. (2) function; whether the acts oc appropriate Citing in curred the courtroom or ad someone for is an act chambers; Adams, junct spaces judge’s normally performed by judge. such (3) Likewise, controversy issuing whether the centered around F.2d at 298. a sentence is court; pending Lopez, general a case before the function. 620 F.2d directly (judge arraign- acts out at immune for actions of arose of visit ing, sentencing). capacity. convicting to the his official Both the McAles Brown, sentencing were ter v. 469 F.2d Cir. citation and 1972). Furthermore, broadly The four factors are to be “normal functions.” sentencing immunity, in favor and immuni citation and the oc- construed directly ty and arose should not be denied where the denial curred the courtroom

H25 charges against from Malina’s visit to the his official were ever filed Malina. For court, appearance capacity. purpose dismiss, however, de- of a motion to spite Judge’s highly irregular “sum- this Court well-pleaded must assume all alie-- mons,” was a visit to the “official gations Tanglewood as true. East Home See, Adams, capacity” judge. Charles-Thomas, Inc., as a 764 F.2d owners v. 1572,(5th Cir.1988). Consequently, Thus, at 297. Gonzales’ ac- question pass “judicial prong tions nature” is whether Gonzales acted with the inquiry. complete Míreles jurisdiction, absence of all having absolutely jurisdiction no matter prong The second of the Míreles test “fleeing allude,” sentence Malina for “re that a if states will lose his officer,” sisting “public endangerment,” act occurred ab officer,” “disobeying an driving,” “reckless Thus, jurisdiction. of all sence this Court “leaving the scene.” must determine whether Gonzales had A review of the Louisiana Code reveals subject-matter jurisdiction some to issue the subject- Gonzales did have some contempt citation and sentence.1 jurisdiction matter According over the case. subject-mat Where a court has some to Article section 16 of the State Constitu- jurisdiction, ter there is sufficient tion, a original jurisdiction district court has immunity purposes. 764 F.2d at matters, of all civil except and criminal question 298. The is whether Gon by otherwise authorized the Constitution. merely authority zales acted excess of his charges brought against Malina did not sentence, issuing contempt citation and fall within the excep- “otherwise authorized” protected by immunity, and is thus or Accordingly, tion. Judge Gonzales had at whether he acted clear absence of all subject-matter jurisdiction least some over See, jurisdiction. Kirklin, My. Schwartz & J. Malina’s case. (1911). § Litigation I Section 1983 9.3 at 451 illegitimate Gonzales’ prior acts of important “judicial It is to note that immuni arrest and summons are ill-received this ty by allegations is not overcome of bad faith Court, they completely deprive but did not Míreles, at -, or malice.” subject-matter jurisdiction. him of See Lo- alone, Judge’s 288. It is the actions pez, 620 “grave proce- F.2d at 1233. Even intent, not that we must consider. deprive dural errors do not all By in Louisiana hold jurisdiction.” Stump Sparkman, 435 U.S. in contempt someone and him sentence 98 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d “[cjontumacious, insolent, disorderly or be- (1978). judge.” havior toward the La.Code Civ.Proc. citing Gonzales’ actions of Malina also, Ann. art. 222. See La.Code Civ.Proc. sentencing and him to five Thus, Judge Ann. arts. 221 and 223. Gon- acts, jail they hours in are were subject-matter jurisdiction zales had some subject- not taken in clear absence of over Malina’s actions within his courtroom. Thus, jurisdiction. matter under no set of however, argues, that he was not facts can Malina overcome sentenced for his behavior within the court- entitlement for the room, but that he was sentenced for what citation and sentence. highway. occurred on the point. Accordingly, we reverse on this The district court assumed Malina’s ver- true, sion of the facts as and found that Qualified Immunity III. essentially Gonzales “sentenced” Mali- jail na to “charges” brought against Generally, qualified immunity inquiry for the him. It is not from right clear the record if focuses on whether the contours of the Blackwell, 1982); Viewing question subject-mat- the case as a Brewer v. Cir. position Fisher, (13 ter Wall.) 335, is consistent with the Bradley and 351, by majority taken preme of the Circuits and the Su- (1871). 20 L.Ed. 646 See, 298; e.g., Court. 764 F.2d at sufficiently authority clear such that a allegedly violated were Justice of the Peace had no pursue plaintiff, that a reasonable official would understand arrest the thus right. Mouille v. action violated no for his actions. Oak, City Live attempts Gonzales to show that he Cir.1990). if This Court must determine had under Louisiana law to arrest a constitu- Judge Gonzales’ actions violated Malina, Judge’s argument but the fails. The so, right, tional and if would reasonable only authority by Judge cited Gonzales violating person have known statute, Louisiana’s murder which defines right. degree killing first murder as the of a human have found that Gon- Because we being in- specific “when the offender has a judicial immunity in issu- zales had absolute great bodily tent to kill to inflict harm citation, ing we do need to upon ... peace engaged officer in the immunity inquiry. qualified We reach the performance lawful duties.” La.Rev. stop only need discuss 14:30(A)(2). Stat.Ann., § in- The statute and the summons into court are interstate “judge” “peace cludes in its definition of offi- immunity. protected by qualified actions cer,” specifically but limits its definition of peace purposes “[f]or officer of’ argues that he did 14:30(A)(2). 14:30(B). La.Rev.Stat.Ann., § § not violate Malina’s Fourth Amendment" Thus, bearing this no statute has on the case rights on the interstate because no seizure before us. occur, however, occurred. A seizure can through physical force or “show of authori Moreover, under the “Peace Officer Stan- —D., U.S. -, ty.” v. Hodari Training” dards section of the Louisiana California -, statutes, “peace annotated officer” is defined (1991). Judge stopped Malina on as: by flashing light, the interstate a red which is appointed full-time or commissioned Thus, authority. Judge a show of employee department, of a sheriffs munici- argument is without merit. Police, pal police department, or the State employment actually whose duties include Judge argues further Gonzales that arrests, making performing of occurred, if a a seizure must even seizure be seizures, searches and or the execution of unreasonable to create a constitutional viola warrants, responsible criminal and which is See, County Inyo, tion. Brower v. prevention for the or detection of crime or traffic, penal, for the enforcement of the or (1989). Again, accepting L.Ed.2d Mali highway laws the state. true, stop na’s version of the facts as stopped Mali unreasonable. Gonzales 40:2402(1). La.Rev.Stat.Ann., § Additional- na because Malina honked his horn and mo 40:2405, ly, every peace under section officer change tioned to the lanes. This “successfully complete must a basic law en- give probable does not rise cause or rea training forcement course.” As the District suspicion. simply sonable The facts do not noted, Judge argued Court Gonzales has not support Judge that Gonzales’ contentions successfully completed any training that he stop proper. was reasonable and course in the area of law enforcement. occurred, Because a constitutional violation Consequently, this Court finds immunity we must inquiry. address the qualified Gonzales is not entitled to claim fair, immunity, even charita- for under Ultimately, Judge Gonzales is not reading judges ble of Louisiana have no qualified entitled to make a claim of immuni authority to make arrests. The district ty peace for he was not a officer authorized correctly denied Gonzales’ motion to stop Malina. Gonzales is no differ immunity qualified grounds dismiss on any person purchases ent than other who regard to the interstate incident. light stops people red on the interstate. finding immunity This in is consistent with our decision Gonzales has claimed Brewer, police 692 F.2d at in which we for the coercive offi- held summons

\\21 charging jurisdiction.”3 cer and the of Malina with various “clear absence of all Crucial offenses, argue and he does not consti- following are the facts:4 Therefore, tutional violation did not occur. Rouge city Baton [A] ap- officer we affirm the quali- district court’s denial of peared at Malina’s home and told Malina immunity aspect fied as to this of the case as that Judge Gonzales wanted to see him in well. his court at 9:30 a.m. the day. next The Officer stated that he was there unofficial- IV. ly Judge Gonzales, as a favor to but the part This in case is affirmed and reversed Judge could issue bench warrant for part. in if arrest Malina appear did not court. GARZA, M. Judge, EMILIO Circuit

concurring part dissenting part. appeared Malina' at court the next morn- ing, but found the courtroom closed to the every aspect

I concur in almost public. arrived, When majority opinion except I one: would hold instructed Malina to wait in absolutely empty Gonzales is not im- prosecution later, mune from courtroom. A Malina in few minutes Gonzales, bailiff, of court.1 This case is not a case of deputy and a sheriff jurisdiction,”2 “excess but rather a case of entered the courtroom.... acutely possible 1.I am aware of the immunity misuses extends to all acts that are not Judge Goldberg correctly point- this dissent. As performed in jurisdic- the clear absence of all ed out: tion[,]” or, conversely, "a has no (1) opening weakening judi- [T]he judicial capac- inroads actions taken outside of his gravest ity, nature, cial could have the conse- for actions that are quences system justice. Every judi- to our but occur in jurisdic- absence of all law;” cial act is done (citations “under color of absent omitted). Maj. op. tion." at 1124 doctrine, every judicial affecting error majority properly also focuses on the four rights ultimately subject citizen's could thus by Judge factors Goldberg first articulated sure, liability. to section 1983 To be McAlester to determine whether horrors, conjure we can converse chambers of judicial capacity (1) acted in his but we cannot allow that to erode the neces- precise complained of is a normal sary immunity. features of the That function; (2) whether the acts occurred in the immunity is sometimes used as an offensive appropriate adjunct spaces courtroom or dagger such as rather than a defensive shield must not chambers; (3) judge's the justify derogating inviolability. controver its Even sy court; though pending centered may around a case there be an before the occasional diabolical act, directly independence or venal and whether the acts the arose out judiciary judge of a capacity. must not be visit to the in his sacrificed one micro- official millimeter, McAlester, scopic portion agree of a lest the fears of 469 F.2d at 1282. I also that judge section 1983 duty. broadly intrusions cow the from his these four factors should be construed immunity may although and that be afforded one Brown, 1280, (5th v. McAlester 469 F.2d 1283 or more factors is not met. See Adams v. McIl 1972). Hill, Cir. 294, And like I (5th 1985). would caution hany, 764 F.2d 297 Cir. The opinion wary those who read this to be that this question presented is not whether Gon exceedingly dissent "is narrow and is tailored to contempt zales' action Malina in this, settings." Harper the rarest of factual v. sentencing jail "judicial him to five hours in was Merckle, 848, (5th (foot Cir.1981) 638 F.2d 859 nature,” but rather whether it “in occurred omitted). note jurisdiction.” all absence of But see n. 7. infra 349, 356-357, Stump Sparkman, 2. See v. (1978) ("A 98 S.Ct. held, correctly "deciding 4.The district court deprived will not be because 12(b)(6)] dismiss, this motion [Rule to the court error, the action he took was in was done mali- accept allegations complaint must 'all ... rather, ciously, authority; inwas excess of his true, along any with reasonable inferences subject liability only he will be to when he has ” ” that be drawn therefrom.' See Record jurisdiction.' acted in the 'clear absence of all 4, Excerpts (quoting for Gonzales tab at 6 Watts (citation omitted)). and footnote Graves, 1416, 1983)). 720 1419 Cir. F.2d My disagreement Tanglewood

3. majority opinion with And so must we. See East Home Thomas, Inc., 1568, docs not stem from the standard of review. The owners v. Charles 849 F.2d "[ajbsolutc majority 1988). correctly that states 1572 Cir. 1128 n contempt power presup- zales’ exercise of his read from a book and

[Judge Gonzales] subject-matter posed, rather than judges are officers with that stated conferred jurisdiction.7 arrest individuals. The to slip paper green to Judge handed only reason Malina was in the court The appear before the and told Malina to bailiff Rouge police offi room because Baton was 2,May concerning duty-judge on cer—on an unofficial visit on behalf of with what traffic violations. Malina asked appear the next Malina to Gonzales —asked charged, and he had been day. jurisdiction prong for im allude,” responded “fleeing with to “resist- munity requires judges possess the au officer,” endangerment,” “public ing an thority perform relating to a mat actions officer,” driving,” “reckless “disobeying an See, Waco, e.g., ter them. Mireles v. before “leaving scene.” The added - U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 116 charges would convince Malina that the (1991)(“[S]uch L.Ed.2d 9 an action—taken obey pull over the next time an order and very jurisdiction judge’s aid of the over a flashing light pulled along- anyone with a matter him —cannot be said to have before responded that he him. Malina did side jurisdiction.” taken in the absence of been stopping for un- feel comfortable added)); Sparkman, (emphasis Stump v. 435 flashing lights marked vehicles with be- 349, 351-52, 1099, 1102-03, U.S. buy light. anyone can such a cause (1978) (stating that L.Ed.2d 331 sterilization point, Judge cited Malina At this petition judge); state was before contempt and sentenced him to five Adams, (stating at 764 F.2d handcuffed, jail. fin- hours was objectionable contempt order out of a arose gerprinted, photographed, imprisoned. sons, involving plaintiffs criminal case Maj. op. at 1123-1124. Moreover, judge presided). over which the Gonzales, Although agree I not occur while as a Gonzales’s actions did any judge, power pun- had he had matter over Louisiana state contempt, at 297 n. ish for see La.Code Civ.Proc.Ann. other claim. See F.2d (West 1960), judicially 2 (citing example art. 222 that the as an of a immune issuance action, cites a citation occurred within a the situation where courtroom, person raising immediately pending no case was before a disturbance contempt, Judge Gonzales.5 He therefore lacked sub- outside his courtroom window for ject jurisdiction6 purpose assumedly ongoing proceedings while are be- matter for the Fisher, Therefore, judge). immunity. Bradley v. 80 fore the at the time See (13 Wall.) 335, (1871); Adams, contempt, Gonzales cited Malina for 298; Blackwell, jurisdic- acting in “clear absence of all Brewer was (5th Cir.1982). Moreover, Judge Gon- tion.” (West 1960) finding 7. La.Code Civ.Proc.Ann. art. 221 Gonzales' See ("A charges direct result of Malina's to the reaction of court is or omission and charges Gonzales' admonition "that orderly tending to obstruct or interfere with obey would convince Malina to an order justice, impair dignity administration of or to pull anyone and ing light pulled alongside over the next time with a flash respect authority.”); or see also court Maj. op. him.” See (West 1991) Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 20 La.Code (same). charging 1124. “It is well settled that a defen Dormenon, v. 1 See also Detoumion function, prosecutorial dant is a not a Mart., (1810) (holding that an to a O.S. insult Id., Vanderwater, Lopez (citing function.” v. auctioneer, acting parish judge a is not denied, 1229, Cir.), cert. 449 U.S. contempt judicial capacity, him in 1028, 601, (1980)). 66 L.Ed.2d 491 As punished); Hart House v. cannot be Junius Piano prosecutor, authority Gonzales had no 850, 1017, (1907) Ingman, 119 La. So. contempt. hold Malina in Detoumion). (citing approval with (West 1960) 6. See La.Code Civ.Proc.Ann. art. 2 majority's skeptical ("Jurisdiction 8. I am also of the somewhat legal over the matter is the of the conclusion that the issuance power to hear and application An citation was a act. particular pro- determine a ceedings, class of actions or demand, factors reveals that the issuance of upon object four McAlester based from; (1) right citation did not arise dispute, the amount in asserted.”). or the value of the Gonzales; pending case before Furthermore, support the factors that Accordingly, im- I would affirm the district munity implicated by are not acts court’s denial of the motion to dismiss in its Judge Gonzales’s conduct. As entirety.9 Justice Chief Warren stated: judge’s duty

It is a all cases decide brought

within his that are him, including

before controversial cases feelings

that arouse the most intense in the

litigants. His errors be on corrected - appeal, but he should not have to fear that litigants may him

unsatisfied hound with charging litigation corruption. malice or America, UNITED STATES Imposing judges such burden on would Plaintiff-Appellee, principled contribute not to and fearless v. decisionmaking but to intimidation. MORA, Medina, Alfonso Jesus Juan Ray, See Pierson Reyes Torres Sosa and Ricardo (1967); see Lira, Defendants-Appellants. Sams, also Thomas Cir.1984) Pierson). (quoting There was no No. 92-8438. case before pending Gonzales when he United States Appeals, Court of contempt. Thus, held policy Malina Fifth Circuit. behind immunity encouragement of decisionmaking” “fearless free from the in- June litigation of vexatious timidation no. —has bearing on Gonzales’s conduct. Con- versely, dangers implicit conduct—

over-reaching joinder from the of executive judicial powers' apparent been —have

since before Constitution. See Fed- (James Madison) (Clin-

eralist No. at 303 (“Were 1961) ed.,

ton power Rossiter joined

judging ... power, to the executive judge might behave with all violence oppressor.”

of an (quoting Montesquieu)).

I would therefore hold that Gon judicially

zales is not immune for the is

suance of the citation and sentenc

ing, because these ... “actions taken [were] jurisdiction.”

in the absence of all

Míreles, U.S. at -, - 112 S.Ct. at 288. capacity. Harper’s visit to Although police personal Gonzales in his official reliance motivation of Rouge Malina was Baton arriving at its was inconsis- told— report officer on an unofficial visit—to prece- tent Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit courtroom, Judge Gonzales's was never dent). why being told he was or that he “summoned/' going charged to be with a In a case crime. dissent, 9. For in this the reasons stated I would facts, involving similarly egregious we focused holding denying also affirm the district court’s particular support on these McAlester factors qualified immunity on the issue by judge our that certain actions were of Malina's and sentence. See "judicial Harper, acts.” See 638 F.2d at 858- Creighton, Anderson (emphasizing third and fourth McAlester fac- (1987) (stating tors because the determination of what consti- protected by qualified immunity that an official is act,” "judicial tutes a must a consider- include law). if his actions were reasonable under the "expectations parties”). ation But (noting

see 764 F.2d at 298 n. 4

Case Details

Case Name: Malina v. Gonzales

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 25, 1993

Citation: 994 F.2d 1121

Docket Number: 91-3757

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.