Lachey v. Levy ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 21-2156 Document: 010110657163 FILED Page: 1
Date Filed: 03/15/2022
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 15, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
NIGEL RAY LACHEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 21-2156
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01093-RB-LF)
JANE C. LEVY; RACHELLE (D.N.M.)
KLUMP,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff Nigel Lachey, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his amended civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed
the amended complaint on the basis of absolute immunity. We exercise jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and summarily affirm. The amended complaint alleges
Defendants, New Mexico state district judge Jane Levy and state hearing officer
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines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.
**
After examining Defendant’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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.
Appellate Case: 21-2156 Document: 010110657163 Date Filed: 03/15/2022 Page: 2
Rachelle Klump, deprived Plaintiff of due process of law when they declined to
admit into evidence in a state child-support proceeding a notarized statement from
Plaintiff’s ex-wife stating Plaintiff would not be required to pay her child support.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants illegally “denied admission of evidence . . . that
meets the ‘self-authenticating’ evidence rules of the state of New Mexico NMRA 11-
902(2).” Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks both actual and punitive damages
against Defendants.
Plaintiff’s federal complaint likely fails for any number of reasons. 1 But, as
the district court held, it undoubtedly fails based on the doctrines of absolute judicial
and quasi-judicial immunity. The Supreme Court has recognized the absolute
immunity of judges from civil damage lawsuits for conduct within their judicial
function. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554–55 (1967). And the Tenth Circuit has
recognized that hearing officers acting in a quasi-judicial fashion enjoy the same
absolute immunity as judges. Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027, 1033 (10th Cir.
2006). Only a complaint that alleges facts suggesting a defendant judge or hearing
officer was not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity can overcome a motion
to dismiss based on absolute immunity. Id. at 1033–34. The facts alleged in
1
The record is unclear whether Plaintiff is seeking or has sought relief from
his child-support obligation in the New Mexico appellate courts by way of direct
appeal. Therefore, we do not consider the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine to Plaintiff’s lawsuit. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
544 U.S. 280 (2005).
2
Appellate Case: 21-2156 Document: 010110657163 Date Filed: 03/15/2022 Page: 3
Plaintiff’s amended complaint make no such suggestion; rather they suggest quite the
contrary. A decision on the admissibility of evidence in judicial and quasi-judicial
proceedings is an integral part of the judicial process and renders the decision-maker
absolutely immune from suit based on such decision. Benavidez v. Howard, 931 F.3d
1225, 1234 (10th Cir. 2019) (Baldock, J., concurring) (setting forth the law as to
when absolute immunity protects a public official involved in litigation).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is
granted and the judgment of the district court dismissing his amended complaint is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
United States Circuit Judge
3