Biehl v. Stoss ( 2007 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
October 15, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
RO BERT E. BIEHL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 07-3232
(D.C. No. 07-CV-4084-SAC)
BRENDA STOSS, City of Salina
(D . Kan.)
M unicipal Court Judge, and ROBERT
A. THOM PSO N, City of Salina
M unicipal Court Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
OR DER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before L UC ER O, HA RTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Robert Biehl filed a pro se suit seeking damages from two judges of the
City of Salina M unicipal Court, contending that they mishandled criminal
proceedings in w hich he w as charged and convicted of drunk driving. Because
judges are absolutely immune from claims for damages brought against them for
*
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G ). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This
order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
actions taken in their official capacity, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of
the suit.
***
Following a series of appearances before the City of Salina M unicipal
Court, stemming from drunk driving charges against him, M r. Biehl sued Brenda
Stoss and Robert Thompson, two of the judges w ho presided over his hearings. In
his complaint, M r. Biehl alleges that Judge Stoss and Judge Thompson failed to
appoint an attorney, to w hich he was entitled by law , to represent him; refused to
dismiss pending charges against him when police officers did not appear at
hearings; conducted a “phony” trial; and found him guilty. Furthermore, although
his complaint contains no allegations to this effect, M r. Biehl submitted with his
complaint a copy of a waiver of counsel bearing his signature, with a handwritten
note stating that the signature was forged.
M r. Biehl sought both compensatory and punitive damages, although he did
not specify an amount due to his belief that “no amount could make up for [his]
losses.” The magistrate judge assigned the case granted M r. Biehl’s motion to
proceed in form a pauperis. The district court then dismissed the suit under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), which requires the dismissal at any time of a suit for
money damages brought against an official immune from such relief. M r. Biehl
appeals.
***
-2-
“W e review determinations of absolute immunity de novo.” Perez v.
Ellington, 421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). In light of
M r. Biehl’s pro se status, we construe his complaint liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); see also Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070,
1076 (10th Cir. 2007). However, even construing M r. Biehl’s complaint liberally,
we agree with the district court that it must be dismissed.
Congress has provided that in suits proceeding in form a pauperis, “the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action
or appeal . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). It is “well established that absolute
immunity bars suits for money damages for acts made in the exercise of
prosecutorial or judicial discretion.” Andrews, 483 F.3d at 1076 (internal
quotation omitted). There are only two exceptions to judicial immunity: (1)
“actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity,” and, (2) actions of a judicial
nature “taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” M ireles v. Waco, 502
U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991).
Here, it is obvious from M r. Biehl’s allegations that his alleged injuries
arise from actions taken by Judge Stoss and Judge Thompson in their judicial
capacities. He alleges that, while presiding over his hearings, the judges did or
failed to do various things in relation to the charges pending against him, such as
failing to appoint counsel. Similarly, M r. Biehl does not challenge the
-3-
jurisdiction of the Salina M unicipal Court. Finally, while a claim that a judge had
forged the signature of a defendant on a waiver of counsel form might not be
barred by judicial immunity, M r. Biehl has failed to allege that either defendant
forged his signature. His complaint contains no allegations regarding forgery at
all, and his handwritten note on the attached documents fails to specify which, if
either, of the defendants he believes forged his signature. Thus, neither exception
to judicial immunity applies, and the district court properly dismissed the suit.
***
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M . Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-4-