Francis L. Harmon v. The Superior Court of the State of California

Ninth Circuit

Francis L. Harmon v. The Superior Court of the State of California

329 F.2d 154, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6136

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1964

Docket18751

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 329 F.2d 154 (Francis L. Harmon v. The Superior Court of the State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Francis L. Harmon v. The Superior Court of the State of California, 329 F.2d 154, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6136 (9th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F.2d 154, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-l-harmon-v-the-superior-court-of-the-state-of-california-ca9-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack