Stephen T. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Harvey FISHBEIN, Chair of the Departmental Screening of the Supreme Court Panel of the Assigned Counsel Plan for New York County, in his
personal and official capacity, Gerald Lebovits, Andrea Hirsch, Norman Reimer, Marvin Ray Raskin, Emily Olshansky, and Other Unknown Persons, Defendants-Appellees.
Isabel ALICIA, George Golfinopoulous, and the City of New York, Defendants.
No. 03-7454.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued: February 20, 2004.
Decided: August 3, 2004.
Final briefs filed March 8, 2004.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, John G. Koeltl, J.
Stephen T. Mitchell pro se, New York, New York, Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert H. Easton, Assistant Solicitor General, New York, New York (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Michelle Aronowitz, Deputy Solicitor General, New York, New York, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: OAKES, KEARSE, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
KEARSE, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff pro se Stephen T. Mitchell, who was formerly certified to serve as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants accused of felonies in New York State's First Judicial Department ("First Department"), appeals from so much of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, John G. Koeltl, Judge, as dismissed his second amended complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 alleging that defendants-appellants, who were responsible for such certifications, terminated his certification and refused to recertify him because of his race and in retaliation for his complaints of racial discrimination. The district court dismissed those claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) on the grounds (1) that the appointment of counsel is a judicial act and that the individual defendants were thus performing a function closely associated with the judicial process and hence were entitled to absolute immunity from Mitchell's claims for monetary relief, (2) that Mitchell failed to meet the requirements for injunctive relief under § 1983, and (3) that his claims for declaratory relief were inextricably intertwined with the merits of a state-court judgment and hence, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, were beyond a federal district court's subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Mitchell contends principally that the district court erred in viewing the individual defendants' functions as integrally related to the judicial process and in holding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applicable. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
To the extent that Mitchell's second amended complaint ("Complaint") was dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, we accept as true the factual allegations of the Complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in his favor. To the extent that the Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we consider in addition matters outside the Complaint of which defendants asked the district court to take judicial notice, as well as other matters of law and public record governing the certification of attorneys who may be appointed to represent indigent defendants.
A. The Parties and the Assigned-Counsel Plan
Mitchell is an African-American attorney licensed to practice law in New York State (the "State"). He has previously served as assigned counsel for indigent persons accused of felonies, in accordance with an assignment plan required by New York law.
State law, see N.Y. County Law art. 18-B ("Article 18-B"), requires
[t]he governing body of each county and the governing body of the city in which a county is wholly contained [to] place in operation throughout the county a plan for providing counsel to persons charged with a crime [for which a sentence of imprisonment is authorized] ... who are financially unable to obtain counsel.
N.Y. County Law § 722; see id. § 722-a. The municipality is required, inter alia, to compensate, at statutorily capped rates, attorneys assigned pursuant to such a plan. See id. §§ 722-b, 722-e.
The City of New York (the "City"), which encompasses the First Department and part of the State's Second Judicial Department ("Second Department"), has a plan that was adopted in 1965 by executive order of the City's Mayor, in cooperation with the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and five county bar associations (the "Bar Associations"), and was approved by the Judicial Conference of the State. Under the City's plan, its principal provider of legal services to indigent defendants is the Legal Aid Society; additional services are furnished by individual assigned attorneys who have been recommended pursuant to a joint undertaking by the Bar Associations (the "Assigned Counsel Plan" or the "Plan"). The Plan required each of the Bar Associations to prepare and certify a list of attorneys
who are admitted to practice in the State of New York and who, in the opinion of the bar association, which shall consider their experience in criminal practice, are competent to give adequate representation to defendants under Article 18-B of the County Law.
Assigned Counsel Plan art. II. The composite list of attorneys "designated by the bar association[s] as available for service in either the Supreme Court or the Criminal Court or both," id. art. II, § 1, is generally referred to as an "18-B Panel."
The Plan also authorizes the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First and Second Departments, to "promulgate such rules with respect to this Plan as they may deem necessary." Id. art. VIII. Rules and standards adopted by the Appellate Division First Department (the "Rules" or "Appellate Division 18-B Rules") regulate, inter alia, the selection, performance, and professional conduct of individual 18-B Panel attorneys. See N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22, § 612.0 et seq. (adopted July 1, 1980). At the times pertinent to this action, an attorney seeking certification to the 18-B Panel for service in the New York Supreme Court — which has jurisdiction over felony cases — was required to have tried at least three felony matters. (See Complaint ¶ 7.) The Plan allows "the appropriate Appellate Division" to add an attorney to, or remove a previously certified attorney from, its 18-B Panel "at any time." Assigned Counsel Plan art. II, § 5. It also allows the Bar Associations to make additions to and deletions from their respective lists of approved attorneys periodically. See id. The Rules provide that the appointment of an attorney to an 18-B Panel is "for an indefinite term subject to recertification as directed by the justices of the Appellate Division, First Department." N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22, § 612.2 (as amended, April 11, 1994).
In addition to adopting the above Rules, the Appellate Division First Department created a Central Screening Committee (the "Screening Committee" or "Committee") to screen all applications for 18-B Panel membership. See id. § 612.6(a) (as amended, April 11, 1994). The Rules provide that the members of the Committee may be chosen for three-year terms either "by the presidents of the [Bar A]ssociations or [by] the justices of the Appellate Division, First Department," id. § 612.4 (as amended, April 11, 1994); members' terms may be extended by the Appellate Division, see id. The Committee's bylaws, as approved by the Appellate Division, provide that, with respect to decisions on certification to the panel, "[t]he action of the Committee is final and non-appealable." Screening Committee Bylaw 2.7. Neither the bylaws nor the Appellate Division 18-B Rules make any provision for judicial review of a Committee decision.
Defendants-appellees are members of the Screening Committee, including the Committee's present Chair. They are self-described "volunteers" (Hearing Transcript, May 24, 2002 ("May Tr."), at 9) who are apparently entitled to representation and indemnification by the State under Public Officers Law § 17 (McKinney 2001), see Formal Opinion of the State Attorney General dated December 20, 1979, 1979 N.Y. Op. Att'y Gen. 71, 71-72, and are referred to hereafter as the "State Defendants."
B. Mitchell's Complaint
The Complaint alleges the following events. Mitchell began the practice of criminal law in approximately 1986. Between 1986 and 1989, he was an Assistant District Attorney in New York County. For nearly four years between 1991 and 1995, he was a member of the Kings County (Second Department) 18-B Supreme Court Panel. (See Complaint ¶ 5.) He was appointed to the New York County (First Department) 18-B Supreme Court Panel (or "the Panel") in 1995. (See id. ¶ 1.) By the spring of 1998, Mitchell had tried more than 20 felony matters to verdict, including three murder trials. (See id. ¶ 7.) He had also negotiated pleas in dozens of felony matters as lead counsel for indigent defendants. (See id. ¶ 9.) In addition, he had briefed and argued "at least two appeals [,] one" state and "the other" federal. (Id. ¶ 11.) During the period 1986-1998, Mitchell was never reprimanded for poor performance or misconduct with respect to his representation of an indigent client. (See id. ¶¶ 6, 10.) His record of winning acquittals was "outstanding," and both his peers and the judges before whom he tried cases had high regard for his trial skills and experience. (Id. ¶ 8.)
Mitchell applied for recertification to the First Department 18-B Supreme Court Panel in 1997 or 1998. (See id. ¶ 16.) In addition to his professional activities, Mitchell had exhibited a deep commitment to the well-being of the African-American community (see id. ¶ 12), and in attachments to his application for recertification, and again in an interview with a Screening Committee member, Mitchell complained that the Plan's administration was infected with racism (see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 18-21). He contended that "many white assigned counsel attorneys were not providing zealous advocacy for their African-American and Latin[o] clients" (id. ¶ 19) and "were more interested in `churning' cases in order to increase their fees ... than [in] putting forth a serious effort to represent their clients effectively" (id.); that "the Assigned Counsel Plan deliberately suppressed the number of African-American attorneys who were eligible to try homicide cases" (id. ¶ 20); and that the Committee "deliberately declined to re-certify a disproportionate number of African-American attorneys to the First Department indigent defense panel as a means of reducing the overall numbers of African-American attorneys on the panel" (id. ¶ 21).
By letter dated March 18, 1998, the Committee notified Mitchell that it was denying his application for recertification and terminating his appointment to the First Department 18-B Panel. (See id. ¶ 2.) The Committee gave no reasons for its decision. (See, e.g., id. ¶ 22.) The text of the one-page letter read as follows:
We regret to inform you that following a thorough and careful review of your recertification application, a decision has been made by the Central Screening Committee to terminate your appointment to the Assigned Counsel Plan felony and misdemeanor panels. That decision is final.
On behalf of the Central Screening Committee, we want to express our appreciation to you for your years of service to the indigent accused.
You are expected to continue to handle to conclusion any assigned cases you now have and to submit a voucher for your work.
(Letter from Committee Chair Norman L. Reimer to Stephen T. Mitchell dated March 18, 1998 ("Committee Letter to Mitchell").)
Mitchell commenced the present action in March 2001 under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and state law, alleging that the State Defendants had terminated his appointment to the First Department 18-B Panel on the basis of his race and in retaliation for his complaints of racial discrimination. (See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 22-25.) The relief requested included (a) awards of compensatory and punitive damages from the State Defendants in their personal capacities; (b) a judgment declaring that the Committee's refusal to recertify Mitchell to the 18-B Panel violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution; and (c) an injunction requiring his reappointment to the Panel. (See id. ¶¶ 14, 26, 38, 50, 62, 74, 86; id. at 1, 19.) Mitchell sought "declaratory and injunctive relief so that he can earn compensation as an indigent defense lawyer and so that he will not be prejudiced with the stigma of being prohibited from membership [in] an association of attorneys." (Id. at 19.)
Mitchell also asserted claims against the City and two city employees, alleging that they had unjustifiably withheld payments due him for his past representation of indigent defendants. (See id. ¶¶ 100-104.) Those claims were subsequently settled, are not at issue on this appeal, and will not be discussed further.
C. District Court's Decision
The State Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and (1) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, respectively. They contended principally (a) that, because the courts have the obligation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to see that indigent persons accused of crimes are not denied the right to be represented by counsel, and because the Appellate Division First Department had delegated to the Committee the responsibility for certifying attorneys who were willing and qualified to provide such representation, the face of the Complaint showed that the State Defendants were performing essentially judicial functions and were thus entitled to quasi-judicial immunity against Mitchell's claims; and (b) that Mitchell's claims challenging the denial of recertification constituted challenges to State judicial decisions, and that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district court thus lacked jurisdiction over those claims.
Mitchell opposed the motion, arguing, inter alia, that the State Defendants were not entitled to judicial immunity because their decision to deny him recertification to the 18-B Panel was not a judicial act but rather was an administrative act in the nature of an employment decision, for which even judges would not be entitled to absolute immunity. (See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss at 17.) He argued that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was inapplicable because there had been no judicial proceeding relating to the Committee's evaluation of his application for recertification; hence his action did not seek review of any state-court proceeding. (See id. at 21.) Rather, Mitchell was asserting previously unadjudicated claims that "state and city officials discriminated against him because of his race and [in violation of] his rights to free speech." (Id.)
In an Opinion and Order dated August 12, 2002, reported at
The district court also held that Mitchell failed to state a claim under § 1983 for an injunction ordering the Committee to reappoint him to the Panel. The court noted that "`injunctive relief [is] not [to] be granted' in a § 1983 action brought against `a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity,' `unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable,'" and that Mitchell had alleged neither the violation of a declaratory decree nor the unavailability of declaratory relief.
The district court ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the court from entertaining Mitchell's claims for declaratory relief and provided an alternative basis for the dismissal of his claims for other relief for the denial of recertification. The court noted that "[o]rdinarily, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to a case in which the decision being directly or indirectly contested is a decision of a state administrative agency that has never been reviewed by a state court, even if the agency proceedings were quasi-judicial in form," for "[i]n such cases, ... no state court decision exists for the federal court to defer to." Id. at 288. In this case, however, the court concluded that the doctrine barred Mitchell's challenge to the Committee's unreviewed determination because
where the administrative body issuing the judgment is an agent of the state court system ... it [can] be said that the federal courts are sitting in review of a state court judgment, thereby triggering RookerFeldman's comity and federalism concerns.... [S]ee Thomas v. Kadish,
... [T]he Plan and Committee function under the authority of the New York courts and the rules adopted thereby. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to reverse or modify their decisions, whether by declaratory or injunctive relief, and must dismiss the plaintiff's claims to the extent that he seeks orders declaring either that the decision denying his certification was wrongful or that he should be re-appointed to the Panel or that the Panel is required to re-appoint him.
Other claims by Mitchell for orders requiring the Committee to state its reasons for the denial of recertification and for disclosure of Committee records were dismissed without prejudice, but were not further pursued.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mitchell contends principally that the district court erred in ruling (1) that the State Defendants have absolute immunity on his claims for damages for the denial of recertification, and (2) that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the district court of jurisdiction over his claims. The State Defendants contend that Mitchell waived the latter argument by first making it at oral argument of this appeal, without having addressed it in his appellate brief, and they invite us to affirm the Rooker-Feldman ruling based on that waiver. In the circumstances of this case, we decline that invitation.
Although we ordinarily will not consider arguments that an appellant has failed to make in his opening brief, see Thomas v. Roach,
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not applicable to Mitchell's claims and that the State Defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity. Because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine affects the threshold issue of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction, we address that doctrine before proceeding to the question of the State Defendants' absolute immunity defense.
A. Applicability of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine recognizes that Congress's grant to federal district courts of jurisdiction to entertain suits raising federal questions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, "is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to th[e United States Supreme] Court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)." Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission,
While the Rooker-Feldman doctrine recognizes that the federal district courts may not review decisions by a state's courts, it does not preclude federal district court review of "executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency." Verizon Maryland,
The Verizon Maryland principle, i.e., that Rooker-Feldman does not preclude district court review of "executive ... determinations made by a state administrative agency,"
Along similar lines, the Fourth Circuit in Allstate Insurance Co. v. West Virginia State Bar,
an "agency of the [S]upreme [C]ourt of [A]ppeals of West Virginia[,]" [whose] purpose is to "give effect to pertinent rules of the [S]upreme [C]ourt of [A]ppeals." See W.Va. State Bar Constitution, arts. I, II. The State Bar is "a part of the judicial department of the State government ... created for the purpose of enforcing such rules as may be prescribed, adopted and promulgated by the court." W.Va.Code § 51-1-4a(d). See also Daily Gazette Co. v. Comm. on Legal Ethics,
Allstate,
The mere fact that agency officials were appointed by a state court, as in Thomas v. Kadish, does not mean that the agency acts as a court. In Roudebush v. Hartke,
In Feldman, the Court likewise observed that, even where the challenged decision is one by a state entity that could properly be characterized as a court, what determines reviewability by a federal district court is not the "`character of the body'" but rather the "`character of the proceedings.'"
In the present case, we conclude that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable both because the Screening Committee, in compiling a list of qualified attorneys, acts as an administrative body, rather than conducting proceedings that are judicial, and because its denial of Mitchell's application for recertification to the 18-B Panel was a decision that was not judicial but legislative.
1. The Role of the Screening Committee
We conclude that the Committee does not act as a judicial arm of the Appellate Division for several reasons. First, although the State Defendants have argued that "the actions of the screening committee .... are essential to permitting judges ... to appoint counsel" (Hearing Transcript, January 17, 2002, at 9-10), the power of a New York court to appoint counsel to represent an indigent defendant is not dependent even on the existence of an 18-B Panel, much less on the Committee's certification of attorneys to that panel. The court has inherent power — indeed, it has a constitutional obligation in a criminal prosecution — to appoint an attorney for an indigent defendant. See, e.g., In re Smiley,
Under no circumstances can section 722 of the County Law be deemed to inhibit or override the trial court's exercise of its inherent power or the performance of its constitutional or statutory duty to furnish proper counsel to an indigent defendant....
It should be emphasized that article 18-B (§§ 722-722-f) of the County Law ... is merely cumulative. [It is] ... designed to facilitate and implement the court's exercise of its inherent power. [It] serve[s] to provide a constant, ready source of available counsel; to define the amount and source of their compensation, and the manner of payment. But [it] do[es] not and cannot entrench upon the court's inherent power and fundamental duty to provide counsel to an indigent defendant.
Stream v. Beisheim,
Second, the Committee does not determine which attorney will be appointed in any given case. The courts' inherent power of appointment has not been delegated to the Committee.
Third, the New York courts do not have inherent authority to provide that an attorney so appointed will be compensated. Rather, an attorney admitted to practice law in New York has a "duty ... to provide uncompensated services for the indigent." In re Smiley,
[T]he cases establishing the right to assigned counsel in criminal matters c [an]not be used to mandate compensation by public funding. Even in expanding the criminal right to assigned counsel the courts, Federal and State, never presumed to direct the appropriation and expenditure of public funds.
The appropriation and provision of authority for the expenditure of public funds is a legislative and not a judicial function, both in the Nation and in the State. It is correlated, of course, with the taxing power (see N.Y. Const., art XVI, § 1; US Const., art I, § 8, cl 1).
In re Smiley,
We note further that, although the State Defendants seem to suggest that they have been appointed by the court (see Defendants-Appellees' brief on appeal at 24, 23) (arguing that Thomas v. Kadish's discussion of a "`state board [that was] appointed by the state supreme court'" "is instructive" (quoting Thomas v. Kadish,
Nor can the present case be analogized to Thomas v. Kadish or Allstate on the theory that the Committee's determinations are the equivalent of a special master's recommendations or of a state court's interlocutory decisions that are to be further reviewed by the state courts. Although judicial review of the Screening Committee's determinations is to a limited extent available in a state-court Article 78 proceeding, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7801 et seq. (McKinney 1994), we are unpersuaded, for two reasons, that the availability of such review provides a basis for deeming the Committee's decisions to be essentially those of a court.
First, we note that the Appellate Division 18-B Rules contain no provision for review of a Committee decision and that the Committee's bylaws provide that "[t]he action of the Committee is final and non-appealable," Screening Committee Bylaw 2.7. To be sure, that bylaw provision and the silence of the Rules cannot entirely foreclose an Article 78 proceeding, for "[e]ven where judicial review is proscribed by statute," the courts retain jurisdiction in an Article 78 proceeding "to make certain that the administrative official has not acted in excess of the grant of authority given ... by statute or in disregard of the standard prescribed by the legislature." New York City Department of Environmental Protection v. New York City Civil Service Commission,
Second, although the State Defendants contend that Mitchell could have asserted his claims of racial discrimination and retaliation in an Article 78 proceeding, that contention is inconsistent with their position that the Committee functions as an arm of the judiciary qua judiciary. Article 78 proceedings seeking review of action or inaction by a court, as contrasted with an administrative agency, have been permitted only for petitions seeking review of orders that summarily punished contempts committed in the court's presence, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7801(2), and for petitions in the nature of prohibition to restrain a judicial officer from acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, see Town of Huntington v. New York State Division of Human Rights,
We note also that Mitchell's claims, if cognizable in an Article 78 proceeding, could not have been fully adjudicated in that proceeding because in such a proceeding, a plaintiff may normally seek only declaratory or injunctive relief; damages are available only when they are "`incidental to the primary relief sought.'" Keane v. New York Law School,
In sum, the Screening Committee's members need not have been appointed by the court; the Committee does not exercise any inherent power of the courts; its certifications are not essential to the exercise of any of the courts' inherent powers; its failure to certify a given attorney does not prevent a court from appointing that attorney; and its decisions are not reviewable pursuant to Article 78 as decisions of a court, except to the extent that they may be considered ministerial rather than judicial. The Committee's certification decisions merely indicate who may, pursuant to the State's enabling legislation and the City's Plan, receive compensation for appointments that may be made by the courts in the future. We conclude that the Committee, in making its certification decisions, is acting as an administrative aide to the court, rather than as a judicial arm of the court.
2. The Nature of 18-B Panel Certification Decisions
We also conclude that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar review of the Committee's denial of Mitchell's application for recertification because that decision was, in its effect, legislative rather than judicial. Under Feldman, a decision is not "judicial" in nature unless it is a ruling on "an actual controversy over an issue, not ... an abstract declaration,"
In the present case, the Committee did not declare that Mitchell was unqualified to act as counsel for indigent defendants; nor did it indicate that there had been any complaint as to his performance or that any question had been raised as to his fitness or competence to act in that capacity. Quite to the contrary, the Committee "express[ed its] appreciation" to Mitchell for his "years of service to the indigent accused," and stated that he was "expected to continue to handle to conclusion any assigned cases [he then had]." (Committee Letter to Mitchell.) Thus, in terminating Mitchell's 18-B certification, the Committee merely made a declaration as to his right to receive publicly funded compensation for his services in cases to which he might be assigned in the future. This was not a declaration of any existing right or liability. Indeed, in urging the dismissal of Mitchell's Complaint, the State Defendants argued, inter alia, that Mitchell's request for declaratory relief from the Committee's decision sought merely an "advisory opinion[ ] that ... cannot affect the rights of litigants in the [present] case." (May Tr. at 13.) We conclude that the Committee's decision was legislative, not judicial.
In sum, we conclude, for the reasons stated in this section and in Part II.A.1. above, that the Committee's decisions implement the legislative resolution that attorneys certified to an 18-B Panel and appointed by the court to represent indigent defendants are to receive compensation, that the Committee's status is that of an administrative body rather than a judicial tribunal, that its certification decisions are not judicial decisions, and, accordingly, that the district court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
B. The State Defendants' Claims of Absolute Immunity
We also conclude that the district court should have rejected the State Defendants' contention that they were entitled to quasi-judicial absolute immunity on Mitchell's claims against them for damages. A private actor may be afforded the absolute immunity ordinarily accorded judges acting within the scope of their jurisdictions if his role is "`functionally comparable' to that of a judge," Butz v. Economou,
In deciding whether an actor is entitled to absolute immunity on the basis that his role is analogous to that of a judge, we evaluate the challenged proceedings in light of the "characteristics of the judicial process" set forth in Butz v. Economou. See DiBlasio v. Novello,
[I]n Butz the Court mentioned the following factors, among others, as characteristic of the judicial process and to be considered in determining absolute as contrasted with qualified immunity: [1] the need to assure that the individual can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation; [2] the presence of safeguards that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct; [3] insulation from political influence; [4] the importance of precedent; [5] the adversary nature of the process; and [6] the correctability of error on appeal.
Cleavinger v. Saxner,
In addition, as discussed in Part II.A.1. above, the Rules make no provision for judicial review, and the Committee's own bylaws state that there is no right of appeal, see Screening Committee Bylaw 2.7. And although the Committee's determinations may, to an extent, be reviewable in an Article 78 proceeding, "in the context of determining whether absolute immunity is appropriate[ ] Article 78 proceedings are generally not considered adequate avenues for `appeal.'" DiBlasio v. Novello,
Given the unavailability of an adequate avenue for judicial review, along with the lack of any requirement for a formal hearing, and the Committee's claimed unfettered discretion to withhold from the attorney the details and source of accusations against him, we think it plain that the Committee's function is not analogous to that of a judge.
Nor can we conclude that the State Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity on the ground that the Committee's decisions are "integrally related" to a judicial proceeding. In order to be entitled to absolute immunity under this test, the official must be engaged in acts that are integrally related not simply to the judicial process in general but to a concrete judicial case or controversy. See generally Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc.,
The Committee's job of formulating a list of attorneys deemed qualified to represent indigent defendants accused of crimes, and its additions to or deletions from that list, bear a marked similarity to the Ex parte Virginia judge's responsibility for compiling a list of qualified jurors. The Committee's decisions are not related to any particular criminal prosecution. The 18-B Panel exists so that judges may select attorneys from the list who will both provide future representation to indigent defendants and receive compensation for those services. But, as discussed above, in any given case, the court may appoint an attorney who is not on the 18-B Panel. Further, even the Committee's rejection of Mitchell's individual application did not affect any particular case, for the Committee's letter of rejection stated that Mitchell was to continue to "handle to conclusion" any matter to which he was then assigned. (Committee Letter to Mitchell.)
In sum, the Committee's functions are neither comparable to those of a judge nor integrally related to any specific judicial proceeding. We conclude that the State Defendants are not entitled to quasi-judicial absolute immunity from Mitchell's claims for damages.
By the same token, the provision in § 1983 conditionally prohibiting the granting of injunctive relief against "a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity," 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is inapplicable to the State Defendants, who plainly are not judicial officers and do not act in a judicial capacity.
CONCLUSION
We have considered all of the State Defendants' arguments on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. For the reasons discussed above, we vacate so much of the judgment as dismissed Mitchell's claims on grounds of absolute immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.