Terry James v. David Godbey

Case: 14-10216 Document: 00512988863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2015
REVISED April 1, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 14-10216 June 27, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
TERRY JAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
JUDGE DAVID C. GODBEY; MAGISTRATE JUDGE JEFF KAPLAN,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:12-CV-4809
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terry James moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his
appeal of the district court’s denial of permission to sue Judge David Godbey
and Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan. Mr. James wished to file a suit alleging
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-10216 Document: 00512988863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2015
No. 14-10216
that Judge Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan violated his constitutional
rights by sanctioning him. The district court determined that his suit was
frivolous, denied permission to sue, and further denied Mr. James’s application
to proceed IFP on appeal.
By moving for IFP status, Mr. James is challenging the district court’s
certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We agree with the district court that Mr.
James’s appeal is not in good faith. “It is well established that judges enjoy
absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings,” Mays v.
Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1996), and Mr. James makes no argument
that somehow judicial immunity should not apply here, see, e.g., Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (noting exception to judicial immunity
for acting in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction”). As such, because Judge
Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan clearly enjoy absolute immunity, Mr.
James’s suit is frivolous.
Because Mr. James has not shown his appeal involves legal points
arguable on their merits, we DENY permission for leave to proceed IFP, and
the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See, e.g., Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 &
n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
2