A federal judge has ruled that District Attorney General Steve Bebb and Sessions Judge Billy Baliles have immunity from monetary damages for actions taken in the course of their judicial duties, but claims for injunctive and declaratory relief can proceed. Chief U.S. District Judge Curtis L. Collier also ruled that attorney Randy Sellers inadequately supported his motion to dismiss so the case against him will proceed.

The recent ruling was made on motions to dismiss claims by Jeremy Hopkins that Bebb, Baliles and Hopkins had violated his constitutional rights. In a lawsuit filed in December 2009, Hopkins alleged the three subjected him to criminal prosecution by a private attorney with an ulterior motive. The lawsuit states Baliles allowed Sellers to prosecute a child custody warrant against Hopkins even though Sellers was representing Hopkins’ estranged wife in their divorce case. According to the lawsuit, Sellers led Baliles to believe there was a violation of a custody order even though there was no such order. It further charged that Bebb failed to train his assistants and allowed Sellers to act as special prosecutor. The Sessions Court case was ultimately dismissed.

Hopkins’ lawsuit asked for legal fees, damages for malicious prosecution and other relief. It also asked that the defendants and their successors be enjoined from empowering special prosecutors without first satisfying the lawful requirements, such as a hearing to determine qualifications and possible conflict of interest.

Bebb and Baliles responded by saying they are immune from prosecution because of their roles in the judicial system. Bebb also said he has sovereign immunity because he is a representative of the state, which cannot be sued.

The judge agreed, saying Bebb is immune from suit in his official capacity. Collier said the U.S. Supreme Court has held judges and other court officers are absolutely immune from suits on claims arising out of their performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. However, Collier said, the courts have declined to extend this protection to situations involving other types of conduct. Prosecutors are not absolutely immune when they perform administrative, investigative or other functions. Allowing Sellers to prosecute the case, Collier said, could be considered an administrative function, for which Bebb would not be entitled to immunity.

Judges, Collier ruled, are immune from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of the judicial role even if the action may have been in error or was done maliciously. He cited cases stating a judge is subject to financial liability involving the performance of a judicial act only when the judge has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Hopkins listed numerous actions Baliles failed to take in allowing Sellers to allegedly prosecute, Collier said, but those actions were taken while Baliles was presiding over the court. “Judge Baliles has jurisdiction over the criminal case, thus, even if the Court were to assume Judge Baliles lost jurisdiction by appointing Sellers, as Plaintiff claims, such action would merely be ‘in excess of his authority’ and would be protected by judicial immunity.”

The judge stated that neither Bebb nor Baliles addressed Hopkins’ claim that immunities do not protect them from injunctive relief. Although the Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits for monetary damages, Collier said, it does not extend to suits for injunctive relief against individuals who enforce the laws of the state. Neither prosecutorial immunity nor judicial immunity protect a defendant from an award of injunctive relief he said, so the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief will proceed.

Collier noted that Sellers did not file a memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss, nor did he offer any arguments to support the motion. The judge noted that Sellers combined his answer to Hopkins’ lawsuit and the motion to dismiss in one pleading so it was difficult to separate his answer from his motion to dismiss. Since there were no arguments supporting his argument for dismissal, Collier denied Sellers’ motion to dismiss.