Mireles v. Waco
502 U.S. 9 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Judicial immunity applies to actions taken by a judge in their judicial capacity, even if those actions were taken in error, done maliciously, or were in excess of their authority. Immunity is only overcome if the actions were nonjudicial or were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Howard Waco, a public defender, failed to appear for the initial call of Judge Raymond Mireles' morning calendar in a California Superior Court.
- Angered by Waco's absence, Judge Mireles allegedly ordered two police officers to forcibly seize Waco and bring him into the courtroom.
- The order specifically included the instruction to use 'excessive force.'
- The officers found Waco in another courtroom, seized him, cursed at him, and forcibly removed him backwards.
- The officers then slammed Waco through the doors and swinging gates into Judge Mireles' courtroom.
- Waco alleged that Judge Mireles knowingly approved and ratified the officers' use of excessive force.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Waco sued Judge Raymond Mireles and two police officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Judge Mireles filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against him on the basis of judicial immunity.
- The District Court (trial court) granted the motion and dismissed the claim against Judge Mireles.
- Waco, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Judge Mireles was not entitled to immunity because ordering the use of excessive force was not a judicial act.
- Judge Mireles, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does judicial immunity protect a judge from a lawsuit for damages when the judge allegedly ordered police officers to use excessive force to bring an attorney into the courtroom?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, judicial immunity protects a judge from a lawsuit for damages in this situation. A judge's act is considered 'judicial' based on the general nature of the function performed, not the specific impropriety of the act itself. Directing court officers to bring a person who is in the courthouse before the court is a function normally performed by a judge. Although ordering the use of excessive force is in excess of judicial authority, it is not an act taken in the 'complete absence of all jurisdiction.' Therefore, the judge's actions, while potentially improper, were undertaken in his judicial capacity and are shielded by absolute immunity.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, judicial immunity should not protect the judge in this case. The judge issued two distinct commands: one to bring the attorney to court, which is a judicial act, and another to commit a battery by using excessive force, which is not. Ordering a battery has no relation to a function normally performed by a judge. The fact that a nonjudicial command was issued alongside a judicial one does not shield the nonjudicial act from liability. Immunity should not attach to the order to commit a battery.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
The Court should not have summarily decided this issue. The dissent by Justice Stevens demonstrates that the lower court's decision was not clearly in error, which is the standard for a summary reversal. The factual situation is so extraordinary that the Court should have either allowed for full briefing and argument or declined to hear the case at all by denying the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens judicial immunity by clarifying the 'judicial act' analysis. The Court holds that the inquiry must focus on the general function being performed (e.g., controlling a courtroom), not the specific, wrongful act in question (e.g., ordering excessive force). This precedent makes it much more difficult for litigants to sue judges for actions taken in connection with their official duties, even for alleged abuses of power, so long as the judge was not acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction. It reinforces the principle that immunity protects against errors and actions in excess of authority to preserve independent judicial decision-making.
Unlock the full brief for Mireles v. Waco