Kraig Payne v. James E. Shadid, Hulick, James Robinson, Paul O. Watkiss, Mark Loren Alanson, Lindsay Vanfleet Rose, Stephenson Clayton, Enrique Ruiz, and John Guanzon

Summary

The court dismissed Kraig Payne’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice after concluding that the complaint improperly challenged rulings in an earlier federal case and failed to state a due process claim. The court held that the judge was protected by judicial immunity and that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply because the defendants were state employees. The dismissal was designated a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the court denied a pending motion to show cause as moot.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff may not use a new action in another federal district court to obtain review of an adverse ruling entered by a different federal district court; the proper avenue is appellate review.
2. A judge is immune from civil damages liability for acts performed in the judge’s judicial capacity, even when the acts are alleged to have been erroneous or malicious.
3. The complaint failed to state a due process claim because Payne received a decision and had an opportunity to appeal, which constituted all the process due under the circumstances alleged.
4. The Federal Tort Claims Act does not provide jurisdiction over claims against state employees for alleged torts because the FTCA concerns torts committed by federal officials and claims against the United States.
5. Leave to amend was properly denied when the court determined that amendment would be futile because Payne could not state a valid § 1983 claim based on dissatisfaction with the prior ruling.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Payne could use a new § 1983 action in the Southern District of Illinois to challenge rulings entered by a federal district judge in a prior case.
2. Whether Judge Shadid was entitled to judicial immunity from Payne’s damages claim based on rulings made in the prior action.
3. Whether the allegations against the remaining defendants stated a due process claim.
4. Whether Payne’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims fell within the court’s jurisdiction when all defendants were state employees.
5. Whether the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed