Evans v. Copins

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Evans v. Copins

546 P.2d 365, 26 Ariz. App. 96, 1976 Ariz. App. LEXIS 778

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedMarch 3, 1976

Docket2 CA-CIV 2052

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 546 P.2d 365 (Evans v. Copins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. Copins, 546 P.2d 365, 26 Ariz. App. 96, 1976 Ariz. App. LEXIS 778 (Ark. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

*97 OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Is a judicial officer cloaked with judicial immunity when he wrongfully incarcerates a person convicted of a traffic offense?

That is the issue to be resolved in this case.

Appellant appeared before the appellee city magistrate in connection with a traffic violation. She was not represented by counsel. After a bench trial appellee Cop-ins found her guilty and sentenced her to pay a fine.

Appellant told the magistrate she could not pay a fine and stated she desired to appeal. She did not, however, file with the city court a written notice of appeal. The magistrate then revised her sentence to one day in jail instead of the fine. Appellant was immediately taken into custody and transported to the Pima County Jail where she served the sentence.

In her suit for false imprisonment and deprivation of civil rights, appellant alleged that the city magistrate acted willfully and maliciously or with wanton disregard for the law. The trial court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment based upon judicial immunity.

Since appellant was not represented by counsel and did not waive her right to counsel, it is clear that she could not be sentenced to a jail term. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). It is equally clear that a judicial officer is not liable in a civil action for acts done in his judicial capacity, however erroneous or by whatever motives prompted. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938). This principle applies in civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 8 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967).

In affirming this judgment we do not condone the actions of the city magistrate.

Affirmed.

KRUCKER and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*97 OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Is a judicial officer cloaked with judicial immunity when he wrongfully incarcerates a person convicted of a traffic offense?

That is the issue to be resolved in this case.

Appellant appeared before the appellee city magistrate in connection with a traffic violation. She was not represented by counsel. After a bench trial appellee Cop-ins found her guilty and sentenced her to pay a fine.

Appellant told the magistrate she could not pay a fine and stated she desired to appeal. She did not, however, file with the city court a written notice of appeal. The magistrate then revised her sentence to one day in jail instead of the fine. Appellant was immediately taken into custody and transported to the Pima County Jail where she served the sentence.

In her suit for false imprisonment and deprivation of civil rights, appellant alleged that the city magistrate acted willfully and maliciously or with wanton disregard for the law. The trial court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment based upon judicial immunity.

Since appellant was not represented by counsel and did not waive her right to counsel, it is clear that she could not be sentenced to a jail term. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). It is equally clear that a judicial officer is not liable in a civil action for acts done in his judicial capacity, however erroneous or by whatever motives prompted. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938). This principle applies in civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 8 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967).

In affirming this judgment we do not condone the actions of the city magistrate.

Affirmed.

KRUCKER and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 P.2d 365, 26 Ariz. App. 96, 1976 Ariz. App. LEXIS 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-copins-arizctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack