FRANCIS L. HARMON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that no claim was stated against any of the defendants, and that judicial and quasi-judicial officers are immune from civil liability for their official acts.
Appellant sued various Los Angeles County officials, including judges, for alleged deprivation of civil rights and conspiracy. The lawsuit stemmed fro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, in pro. per., sues the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, certain of its judges, certain judges of the District Court of Appeal of the State of California, the Los Angeles County Sheriff, District Attorney, County Clerk, Probation Officer and Court Trustee, County Auditor and County Treasurer, in two causes of action, one based on an alleged deprivation of civil rights and the second based on a conspiracy to deprive appellant of those rights. This because certain of the appellees prosecuted or judicially acted upon a claim made in the State courts, based on §§ 1650-1690 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the “Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act,” against appellant.
Treating the judgment of dismissal of the complaint below (Tr. p. 35) as a dismissal of the appellant’s cause of action (as appellant does), we affirm the district court’s action, because it held, and we hold:
(1) No claim is stated against any of the defendants.
(2) The acts of the judicial defendants complained of were judicial acts, done by them in the exercise of their judicial functions, under an absolute immunity from civil liability. (Bradley v. Fisher, 1872, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U.S. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646.) The Civil Rights Act does not abrogate this immunity. (Johnson v. MacCoy, 9 Cir. 1960, 278 F. 2d 37; Sires v. Cole, 9 Cir. 1963, 320 F. 2d 877.)
(3) The acts of the “prosecuting defendants” complained of were “quasi-judicial” acts done by them in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions, and under a similar, if not a same, immunity. “[A] like immunity extends to other officers of government whose duties are related to the judicial process.” (Barr v. Matteo, 1959, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434; Sires v. Cole, supra.)
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Chapman v. State, 517 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
-
Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581 (3d Cir. 1966)
-
Briggs v. Goodwin, 569 F.2d 10 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1959)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (U.S. 1871)
- Pargoud v. United States, 13 Wall. 156 (U.S. 1871)
- Sires v. Cole, 320 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1963)
- Johnson v. MacCOY, 278 F.2d 37 (9th Cir. 1960)