Herring v. Douglas ( 1995 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-10216
Summary Calendar
JAMES HENRY HERRING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
KENNETH DOUGLAS, Judge
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(No. 3:95-CV-102-T)
(May 22, 1995)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant James Henry Herring appeals the dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d) civil rights suit brought against Judge Kenneth
Douglas, a Texas Court Judge. Appellant's claims stem from the
actions of the state judge in conducting an extradition hearing.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides:
"The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the
legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.
We AFFIRM.
Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from
damages brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Except in the clear
absence of jurisdiction, "[a] judge will not be deprived of
immunity because the action he took was in error, was done
maliciously, or was in excess of his authority." Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). "[T]he scope of the judge's
jurisdiction must be construed broadly where the issue is the
immunity of the judge." Id. at 356.
A review of the Texas Code reveals that Judge Douglas did have
some subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 51.13 § 10 (West 1978) provides that Texas state
court judges are vested with the authority to conduct extradition
hearings.
Herring's allegations against Judge Douglas are based upon
Judge Douglas's actions in conducting an extradition hearing, which
is within the scope of his jurisdiction, thus affording him
absolute judicial immunity. Judge Douglas did not act in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction. See Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-57.
Herring's claim is based upon an indisputably meritless legal
theory and was thus properly dismissed with prejudice. Graves v.
Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court did
not abuse its discretion by dismissing Herring's complaint pursuant
to § 1915(d).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2