From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. MacLaughlin

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Jul 26, 2007
No. B194094 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 26, 2007)

Opinion


MARCELLUS DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. MACLAUGHLIN et al., Defendants and Respondents. B194094 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division July 26, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC353672, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge.

Marcellus Davis, Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, James M. Schiavenza, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richard J. Rojo, Marsha S. Miller, and David Adida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.

VOGEL, Acting P.J.

Marcellus Davis, Jr. sued L & R Automotive Supply Co. in small claims court and lost at a hearing presided over by a temporary judge. Davis complained to the supervising judge that the temporary judge was biased against him because of his race and mental disability. The complaint was referred to the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s Temporary Judge’s Committee, which reviewed the record of the small claims proceedings, found no evidence of bias or unfairness, and (by letter from Comr. Douglas G. Carnahan) so advised Davis. Dissatisfied, Davis complained to the presiding judge (Hon. William A. MacLaughlin), who referred the matter to the assistant presiding judge (Hon. Stephen J. Czuleger), who reviewed the entire file, then wrote to Davis to tell him his claims were without merit and the case had been closed.

Davis then filed a pro se complaint against the judge pro tem, the commissioner, and the supervising, presiding and assistant presiding judges, alleging a conspiracy to deny his constitutional right to due process that caused him to suffer emotional distress. The judicial officers demurred on the ground of judicial immunity and the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Davis appeals.

DISCUSSION

Assuming the truth of Davis’s allegations as we must on review of a demurrer dismissal (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318), all of the judicial officers are absolutely immune from liability for acts performed within their jurisdiction and in their official capacities (Stump v. Sparkman (1978) 435 U.S. 349, 356-357; Greene v. Zank (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 497, 507). Because the record confirms that all of the judicial officers were at all relevant times acting in their judicial capacity and within their jurisdiction, they are absolutely immune from liability in this case. (Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 11-12; Regan v. Price (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1495; Greene v. Zank, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 507; Paddleford v. Biscay (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 139, 143-144.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are entitled to their costs of appeal.

We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JACKSON, J.

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

Davis v. MacLaughlin

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Jul 26, 2007
No. B194094 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 26, 2007)
Case details for

Davis v. MacLaughlin

Case Details

Full title:MARCELLUS DAVIS, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. MACLAUGHLIN…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Jul 26, 2007

Citations

No. B194094 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 26, 2007)