Michael F. Robillard, Jr. v. Judge David Harold Judd and Court Clerk Larinda Valdon

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed Michael F. Robillard, Jr.’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a state-court judge and court clerk with prejudice. The court held that the claims were barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and by absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. The court also denied leave to amend and closed the case because amendment would be futile and Robillard failed to comply with an order concerning the filing fee or in forma pauperis application.

Holdings

1. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that, in substance, sought federal review, reversal, or remand of the state-court proceedings.
2. Judge Judd was entitled to absolute judicial immunity because the challenged conduct consisted of judicial acts performed within the court's jurisdiction, and the complaint did not allege that he acted in a complete absence of jurisdiction.
3. Valdon was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity because the challenged scheduling and noticing activities were normal clerk functions integral to the judicial process.
4. Dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate because amendment would be futile in light of the immunity bars and the Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar, and Robillard also failed to comply with the court's fee-or-in-forma-pauperis order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint could proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) when the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the federal district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review or reversal of the plaintiff's state-court proceedings.
3. Whether the state judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity for acts performed in his judicial capacity.
4. Whether the court clerk was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for scheduling and noticing activities integral to the judicial process.
5. Whether amendment would be futile and the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed