Price v. Irons ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30412 Document: 00515698059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-30412 January 7, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Stanley Price,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Paulette Riley Irons, Officially and Individually; Donald T.
Johnson; Quiana M. Hunt; Hunt-Clark Law Firm, L.L.C.,
Officially; Sharon K. Hunter; Robin M. Giarruusso, Officially
and Individually; Christopher J. Bruno, Officially and Individually;
Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Officially; Susan C.
Kalmbach; Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, Officially
and Individually; Michelle A. Beaty,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CV-11451
Case: 20-30412 Document: 00515698059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-30412
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Stanley Price filed this lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana
alleging misconduct related to a separate set of proceedings that Price filed in
Louisiana state court. He alleges that various judges committed judicial
misconduct; that opposing counsel acted unethically; and that the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, and their
respective investigative officers failed to properly investigate his complaints
of misconduct.
The district court dismissed Price’s claims. It concluded that the
claims brought against the defendants in their official capacities were barred
by the Eleventh Amendment. It further concluded that Price’s claims against
the various judges in their personal capacities were barred by judicial
immunity and that those brought against the investigative officers in their
personal capacities were barred by absolute immunity. The district court
dismissed Price’s claims against the opposing counsel and their law firm
because Price had failed to state a claim based on federal law. Price moved to
have Judge Vance, who heard his case in federal court, disqualified, but that
motion was denied as well.
On appeal, Price first argues that the district court should have given
him leave to amend his complaint. However, “[i]t is within the district
court’s discretion to deny a motion to amend if it is futile.” Stripling v.
Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, 872–73 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court
did not err in denying Price’s motion to amend because Price’s motion does
not explain how he could cure the deficiencies in his claims. Amending the
complaint would be futile.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 20-30412 Document: 00515698059 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-30412
Second, Price argues that judicial immunity does not apply because
the alleged misconduct related to the administrative responsibilities of the
state judges, not their adjudicative responsibilities. We agree with the district
court that the conduct complained of was judicial in nature because it
involved the judicial administration of Price’s case. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31
F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A judge’s acts are judicial in nature if they
are ‘normally performed by a judge’ and the parties affected ‘dealt with the
judge in his judicial capacity.’” (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12
(1991))).
Third, Price contends that the Ex Parte Young doctrine permits him to
assert his claims despite the Eleventh Amendment’s general grant of
sovereign immunity to nonconsenting states against private suits in federal
court. Ex Parte Young applies only where a plaintiff has sought prospective
injunctive or declaratory relief. Green Valley Special Util. Dist. v. City of
Schertz, 969 F.3d 460, 471 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Price’s complaint asked
the district court to award damages, not prospective relief, so the district
court was correct in its determination that the Eleventh Amendment bars his
suit against the defendants in their official capacities.
Fourth, Price asserts that he has stated a federal claim against the
opposing counsel and their law firm because he asserted a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. However, as the district court noted, § 1983 applies only
where an individual acts under color of state law. See Cornish v. Corr. Servs.
Corp., 402 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 2005). We agree with the district court
that these defendants did not act with state authority or under the color of
state law.
Finally, Price asks this court to reverse the denial of his motion for
disqualification. However, Price provides us with no basis to disqualify Judge
Vance.
3
Case: 20-30412 Document: 00515698059 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-30412
For these reasons, and for the reasons outlined by the district court,
we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Price’s claims. We also
AFFIRM the denial of Price’s motion for disqualification.
4