Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

My question involves civil rights in the State of: Tennessee and US constitution.
I was arrested for 5 misdemeanor traffic infractions. Suspended license, tags, insurance etc.. The maximum allow limit is $1,000 per misdemeanor, bringing total to $5,000 max. 3 of the charges only carry a $50 fine. My bail was set at $50,000, which is 10x the legal limit. TN code also says that people charged on misdemeanors are to be released instead of arrested. I spent 7 days in jail until finally released on pretrial probation. I signed under duress. My question is: Should I sue the court, city, or should I sue them as individuals in federal court?

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

My question involves civil rights in the State of: Tennessee and US constitution.
I was arrested for 5 misdemeanor traffic infractions. Suspended license, tags, insurance etc.. The maximum allow limit is $1,000 per misdemeanor, bringing total to $5,000 max. 3 of the charges only carry a $50 fine. My bail was set at $50,000, which is 10x the legal limit. TN code also says that people charged on misdemeanors are to be released instead of arrested. I spent 7 days in jail until finally released on pretrial probation. I signed under duress. My question is: Should I sue the court, city, or should I sue them as individuals in federal court?

---

You only named three infractions. What were the other two?

Improper tag and resisting arrest. My appointed lawyer watched the video and agreed that they was no resistance.

It doesn't really matter what the charges are if all are misdemeanors and they exceeded the legal allowed amount for bail. The question still stands.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

TN code also says that people charged on misdemeanors are to be released instead of arrested.

---

Cite the code, please.

There could be an exception for multiple offenses. Prior convictions might also be an issue.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

My question involves civil rights in the State of: Tennessee and US constitution.
I was arrested for 5 misdemeanor traffic infractions. Suspended license, tags, insurance etc.. The maximum allow limit is $1,000 per misdemeanor, bringing total to $5,000 max. 3 of the charges only carry a $50 fine. My bail was set at $50,000, which is 10x the legal limit. TN code also says that people charged on misdemeanors are to be released instead of arrested. I spent 7 days in jail until finally released on pretrial probation. I signed under duress. My question is: Should I sue the court, city, or should I sue them as individuals in federal court?

---

Judges are absolutely immune from suit for the decisions they make on the bench so you won't get anywhere suing the judge individually. If the court is part of the state court system (e.g. Tennessee criminal court) you'd sue the state. If the court is a city or county court (e.g. General Sessions, Juvenile and Municipal Courts) you likely would need to sue the city or county that provides for that court rather than the state. Consult a local civil litigation attorney who handles civil rights claims for help in getting it right.

The only reference I see to a $1000 limit is if the bail is set by a clerk. Since you reference suing a judge, it would appear a clerk didn't set your bail so the limit doesn't apply.

TN Code § 55-10-207 (2019)

(a) As used in this section, “traffic citation” means a written citation or an electronic citation prepared by a law enforcement officer on paper or on an electronic data device with the intent the citation shall be filed, electronically or otherwise, with a court having jurisdiction over the alleged offense.

(b)

(1) Whenever a person is arrested for a violation of any provision of chapter 8, 9, 10 or 50 of this title or § 55-12-139, or chapter 52, part 2 of this title, punishable as a misdemeanor, and the person is not required to be taken before a magistrate or judge as provided in § 55-10-203, the arresting officer shall issue a traffic citation to the person in lieu of arrest, continued custody and the taking of the arrested person before a magistrate, except as provided in subsection (h).

Ok. What does that have to do with any of the responses you have received?

TN Code § 40-11-105 (2019)

(a)

(1) When the defendant has been arrested or held to answer for any bailable offense, the defendant is entitled to be admitted to bail by the committing magistrate, by any judge of the circuit or criminal court, or by the clerk of any circuit or criminal court; provided, that if admitted to bail by the clerk of any circuit or criminal court, the defendant has a right to petition the judge of the circuit or criminal court if the defendant feels that the bail set is excessive, and shall be given notice of this fact by the clerk.

(2) The clerk of any circuit or criminal court may only admit the defendant to bail when the judge is not present in the court and the clerk reasonably believes that the judge will not be present within three (3) hours after the defendant has been committed to the county or city jail, following arrest.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), in no event may a clerk set the amount of bail in excess of:

(1) One thousand dollars ($1,000) if the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor;

I believe it also applies to the judge. Excessive is excessive, especially for minor traffic offences. $10,000 per for expired tags, and no insurance when they only carry a $50 fine each.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

I believe it also applies to the judge. Excessive is excessive, especially for minor traffic offences. $10,000 per for expired tags, and no insurance when they only carry a $50 fine each.

---

You would believe wrong. It specifically says the clerk when the judge isn't available. I'm guessing there is something else going on that made the judge set your bail so high but there's no way for us to know that.

Quote:

---

I believe it also applies to the judge.

---

It doesn't. That section applies limitations to what a clerk can do, not what a judge can do.

Besides, you omitted

Quote:

---

(c) A clerk may set the amount of bail in excess of the listed amounts in subsection (b) if the defendant is deemed a risk of flight pursuant to § 40-11-118.

---

And did you notice:

Quote:

---

if admitted to bail by the clerk of any circuit or criminal court, the defendant has a right to petition the judge of the circuit or criminal court if the defendant feels that the bail set is excessive,

---

Did you do that?

I have no criminal record. Only misdemeanor traffic violations.
The statute also says that I'm to be informed of my right to request bail reduction. I wasn't. I wasn't a risk of flight. And since the clerk is limited on bail amount, the judge upon seeing the excessive bail, and that I was taking before him following being told of bail amount, would be required to make it reasonable. The clerk shouldn't have been about to set bail since the judge was present in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

I have no criminal record. Only misdemeanor traffic violations.
The statute also says that I'm to be informed of my right to request bail reduction. I wasn't. I wasn't a risk of flight. And since the clerk is limited on bail amount, the judge upon seeing the excessive bail, and that I was taking before him following being told of bail amount, would be required to make it reasonable. The clerk shouldn't have been about to set bail since the judge was present in court.

---

Could you please stop changing your story/adding undisclosed facts to it when someone shows you are wrong. The judge is not REQUIRED to change the bail if they do not feel it is excessive. Further, since you went before a judge the rules on the clerk do not apply as they are not the ones granting you the bail.

Given this in your other thread: "My license was suspended about 20 years ago for non-payment of fines and court cost. ", I can see the judge thinking you are a risk of not appearing since you failed to honor your obligations in the past.

Now listen, The judge is required by law to follow the constitution. The constitution prohibits excessive bail. $50,000 for misdemeanors which mostly carry a $50 fine is very excessive. I don't know what police dept or court you work for, but you sure aren't a lawyer.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

Now listen, The judge is required by law to follow the constitution. The constitution prohibits excessive bail. $50,000 for misdemeanors which mostly carry a $50 fine is very excessive. I don't know what police dept or court you work for, but you sure aren't a lawyer.

---

That's a pretty standard bail. Our standard bail her is $10,000 per charge on traffic. Usually they let you pay just 10% to get out though. With 5 charges $50,000 sounds right. Plus the fact you skipped out on the court for an excessive amount of time adds to it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

Now listen, The judge is required by law to follow the constitution. The constitution prohibits excessive bail. $50,000 for misdemeanors which mostly carry a $50 fine is very excessive. I don't know what police dept or court you work for, but you sure aren't a lawyer.

---

Do you have a lawyer? If not, you should get one.

1: Judges are libel in their personal capacity when they violate your rights. See : “Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.”
Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622


"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual' , not his official capacity..."
70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability


[a] “Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud.”
Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994

2: TN code sets Max bail at $1,000 per misdemeanor and 2 separate codes call for release on misdemeanors by simply signing the citation.

3: TN ruled 2 years ago that a license can't be suspended for fines or cost. Mine was 20 years ago. That ticket and cost was paid anyways, but not before I received addictional tickets. The addition tickets are void since my license was suspended unconstitutionaly.

4: Unless you're an actual lawyer, that knows how to sue in federal court, it's just an opinion.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

2: TN code sets Max bail at $1,000 per misdemeanor and 2 separate codes call for release on misdemeanors by simply signing the citation.

---

Please provide a statute, besides the one which references clerks, that backs up that assertion regarding the bail amount. I don't see one anywhere. Further, there are exceptions to the requirement that you be cited and released. Without knowing the code sections you were cited under, we can only hypothesize that is what is at play here. Edit: I see on your other thread that you caught a resisting charge. That is a go to jail offense, not a get a ticket and go home offense. Driving on a suspended license is also an arrestable offense where a citation is optional, not required.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

3: TN ruled 2 years ago that a license can't be suspended for fines or cost. Mine was 20 years ago. That ticket and cost was paid anyways, but not before I received addictional tickets. The addition tickets are void since my license was suspended unconstitutionaly.

---

Your information is out of date. That ruling was overturned in May. There goes that argument, that didn't really apply anyway since your license was already suspended before the ruling.

If you'll notice my second reply in this thread, I mentioned resisting. My court appointed lawyer watched the video and agreed that I definitely didn't resist.

Even if they could set bail at any amount they want (and they can't), each charge was for $10,000 each for a total of $50,000. Now, there's no way that $10,000 bail for expired tags and $10,000 for insurance which are $50 fines, isn't excessive.

BTW, if the ruling was overturned in May, can you provide a link?

And how is it possible to be on bail for a non arrestable offense?

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

If you'll notice my second reply in this thread, I mentioned resisting. My court appointed lawyer watched the video and agreed that I definitely didn't resist.

---

That's nice but it doesn't change the fact that at the time of the arrest, the officer was able to convince a judge you were resisting. Therefore, the arrest and bail are not out of line at that time. I will grant you, however, that the police love to abuse resisting charges so it may have been BS. If the judge believed probable cause existed at the time, he did nothing wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

Even if they could set bail at any amount they want (and they can't), each charge was for $10,000 each for a total of $50,000. Now, there's no way that $10,000 bail for expired tags and $10,000 for insurance which are $50 fines, isn't excessive.

---

You STILL have not provided one iota of evidence to back up your assertion regarding the courts' rights to set bail. 10,000 for the suspended and the resisting I can agree with. The others were probably higher than they might normally be and probably punitive given your apparent disdain for the law, based on their review of your history. Does it suck? Sure.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

TN Code § 40-11-105 (2019)
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), in no event may a clerk set the amount of bail in excess of:

(1) One thousand dollars ($1,000) if the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor;

I believe it also applies to the judge.

---

The limit of $1,000 in that statute only applies when the clerk sets the bail. Look at the part of the statute I put in bold: it specifically tells you that paragraph (b) only limits the powers of the clerk, not the judge. So that statute does not help you here.

Without knowing all the details of your case — what all the charges were, what the maximum possible penalties were, etc., I cannot say if the court imposed excessive bail. However, if the maximum penalty that could be imposed for the offense was $50 with no other possible penalty (e.g. no possible jail time, etc), then imposing a $10,000 bail requirement would clearly be excessive.

The charges would have been : Driving on suspended - class b - 6 months. 2: Resisting arrest- maybe 30 day. 3: Improper tag- not sure. 4: Expired tag - $50. 5: No insurance - $50. I'm on pretrial probation for all of them, but even my court appointed lawyer doesn't have the citation. I've never seen it.

And BTW, my last conviction for driving on suspended was 15+ years ago. If the ruling is still valid from 2 years ago, the suspension violated my rights. Suspended for fines and fees.

I can't find them quickly, but I have rulings which says traffic judges are clerks.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

The charges would have been : Driving on suspended - class b - 6 months. 2: Resisting arrest- maybe 30 day. 3: Improper tag- not sure. 4: Expired tag - $50. 5: No insurance - $50. I'm on pretrial probation for all of them, but even my court appointed lawyer doesn't have the citation. I've never seen it.

And BTW, my last conviction for driving on suspended was 15+ years ago. If the ruling is still valid from 2 years ago, the suspension violated my rights. Suspended for fines and fees.

I can't find them quickly, but I have rulings which says traffic judges are clerks.

---

Traffic judges are not clerks. You are misreading something.

As I pointed out earlier, the ruling regarding license suspensions for fines was overturned in May.

You're misunderstanding something. Municipal (City) court judges in Tennessee are not clerks. There are separate Municipal Court Clerks. The clerk is empowered to do limited things with regard to resolving traffic citations and other minor offenses, but the Judge is a Judge and the Clerk is a Clerk. The state Constitution allows the legislature to enact laws establishing a court system and they have passed a state law providing for the municipal courts in all areas of the state. Those judges are judges to the full extent of the authority authorized by enacted law.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

I'm on pretrial probation for all of them, but even my court appointed lawyer doesn't have the citation. I've never seen it.

---

Your lawyer has access to all of that. Often times the court appointed attorneys receive a packet with all the documents in it. If there are no issues with them they don't always give copies to the defendant as you should have received court documents at arraignment with all the charges listed. If you ask your lawyer I'm sure he could provide you a copy. If he can't even figure out how to get those things then I would suggest hiring your own lawyer.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

And BTW, my last conviction for driving on suspended was 15+ years ago. If the ruling is still valid from 2 years ago, the suspension violated my rights. Suspended for fines and fees.

---

That ruling was overturned on May 23, 2020 by the Sixth circuit. If you would have applied for relief during the preliminary injunction you probably could have gotten your license back as long as it was only suspended for fines, fees, or court costs. But since that decision was overturned you lost your chance to correct it. You could file for an appeal and try to take it to the supreme court to get it overturned, but good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

I can't find them quickly, but I have rulings which says traffic judges are clerks.

---

What? That makes no sense. I would love to see a ruling that says anything like that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Fuzzz

---

Your lawyer has access to all of that. Often times the court appointed attorneys receive a packet with all the documents in it. If there are no issues with them they don't always give copies to the defendant as you should have received court documents at arraignment with all the charges listed. If you ask your lawyer I'm sure he could provide you a copy. If he can't even figure out how to get those things then I would suggest hiring your own lawyer.



That ruling was overturned on May 23, 2020 by the Sixth circuit. If you would have applied for relief during the preliminary injunction you probably could have gotten your license back as long as it was only suspended for fines, fees, or court costs. But since that decision was overturned you lost your chance to correct it. You could file for an appeal and try to take it to the supreme court to get it overturned, but good luck with that.




What? That makes no sense. I would love to see a ruling that says anything like that.

---

Apparently my court appointed lawyer doesn't have the citation. I wish I could afford to hire one.

Just found where the ruling was overturned. It was in 2019, not 2020. Thanks for the info though. :)

The clerk ruling...I was slightly mistaken on.
It says traffic judges doesn't rule in their official capacity but as officers of the court. Clerk is an officer of the court, and I think I saw another ruling that says that, but I'm unable to locate it.

Seriously, thanks again for info about the case being overturned.

I think you are likely to find that, while all clerks may be officers of the court, not all officers of the court are clerks.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

Apparently my court appointed lawyer doesn't have the citation.

---

Regardless of whether he has it or not what do you hope to gain from seeing it? If you have already been arraigned then you are aware of the charges you face. Are you hoping to try and find some technicality in the citation to get off on?

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

Just found where the ruling was overturned. It was in 2019, not 2020. Thanks for the info though. :)

---

While they may have argued it in 2019, the ruling by the Sixth Circuit was filed on May 20, 2020. ( I was 3 days off before.) So the ruling is only 2 months old. Here is the info if you want to read the opinion:


20a0285n.06 18-6121 05/20/2020 Fred Robinson v. Jeff Long - Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

1: Judges are libel in their personal capacity when they violate your rights. See : “Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.”
Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622.

---

First of all it is LIABLE, not LIBEL. Second, there is no such passage or quote as you quote in that ruling, nor is any phrase close. This proves without any legal doubt, that you are merely copying and pasting someone elses interpretations that suit you, period.

Quote:

---

Quoting Fuzzz

---

Regardless of whether he has it or not what do you hope to gain from seeing it? If you have already been arraigned then you are aware of the charges you face. Are you hoping to try and find some technicality in the citation to get off on?

---

That's just it, I was giving bail, but I was never arraigned. I never given a copy of the citation, nor informed of the charges and penalties. All they did was take me before the judge, ask that bail not be reduced then locked me up for 7 days. I was only told of bail and amount while in booking.

Quote:

---

Quoting RJR

---

First of all it is LIABLE, not LIBEL. Second, there is no such passage or quote as you quote in that ruling, nor is any phrase close. This proves without any legal doubt, that you are merely copying and pasting someone elses interpretations that suit you, period.

---

Some things I may not have checked, but I have checked the main concern. If judges violate your rights, they can be held accountable and sued in their individual capacity.

All acts must be within constitutional limits.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

That's just it, I was giving bail, but I was never arraigned. I never given a copy of the citation, nor informed of the charges and penalties. All they did was take me before the judge, ask that bail not be reduced then locked me up for 7 days. I was only told of bail and amount while in booking.

Some things I may not have checked, but I have checked the main concern. If judges violate your rights, they can be held accountable and sued in their individual capacity.

---

Judges are absolutely from suit for the actions they take on the bench. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated this principle many times, for example:

We have held that state judges are absolutely immune from liability for their judicial acts, Pierson v. Ray, supra; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978), and that state prosecutors have absolute immunity from liability for their actions in initiating prosecutions, Imbler v. Pachtman, supra.

Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 334, 103 S. Ct. 1108, 1115, 75 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1983).

The law is the same in the Tennessee courts:

The doctrine of judicial immunity affords judges, acting within their judicial capacities, absolute immunity from civil liability. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that this doctrine extends to suits brought against judges for constitutional violations. In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1218, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), the United States Supreme Court held that judges sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have absolute immunity for acts committed within their judicial capacities.

Slate v. State, No. M199800434COAR3C, 1999 WL 1128854, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 1999).

So you won't win a lawsuit against the judge for his/her bail decisions because of this absolute immunity.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/15/u...hts-cases.html

I can sue and win an injunction plus lawyer fees.

And if I can verify that: 1) Traffic judges don't act in their official capacity but as officers of the court and; 2) The State has no authority over the non-commercial use of an automobile, thus no jurisdiction, their immunity is out the window.

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974)
However, since Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), it has been settled that the Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law. Ex parte Young teaches that, when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he
"comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
Id. at 209 U. S. 159-160. (Emphasis supplied.) Ex parte Young, like Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378 (1932), involved a question of the federal courts'
Page 416 U. S. 238
injunctive power, not, as here, a claim for monetary damages. While it is clear that the doctrine of Ex parte Young is of no aid to a plaintiff seeking damages from the public treasury, Edelman v. Jordan, supra; Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 327 U. S. 573 (1946); Ford Motor Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459 (1945); Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Real, 322 U. S. 47 (1944), damages against individual defendants are a permissible remedy in some circumstances notwithstanding the fact that they hold public office. Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368 (1915). See generally Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693 (1973). In some situations, a damage remedy can be as effective a redress for the infringement of a constitutional right as injunctive relief might be in another.

Final resolution of this question must take into account the functions and responsibilities of these particular defendants in their capacities as officers of the state government, as well as the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In neither of these inquiries do we write on a clean slate. It can hardly be argued, at this late date, that, under no circumstances, can the officers of state government be subject to liability under this statute. In Monroe v. Pape, supra, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, writing for the Court, held that the section in question was meant "to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges and immunities by an official's abuse of his position." 365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 172. Through the Civil Rights statutes, Congress intended
"to enforce provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against those who carry a badge of authority of a State and represent it in some capacity, whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it."
Id. at 365 U. S. 171-172.
Since the statute relied on thus included within its scope the
"'[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law,'"
id. at 365 U. S. 184 (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 313 U. S. 326 (1941)), government officials, as a class, could not be totally exempt, by virtue of some absolute immunity, from liability under its terms. Indeed, as the Court also indicated in Monroe v. Pape, supra, the legislative history indicates that there is no absolute immunity. Soon after Monroe v. Pape, Mr. Chief Justice Warren noted in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967), that the "legislative record [of § 1983] gives no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common law immunities," id. at 386 U. S. 554.

Excessive Bail is covered in the TN and US Constitutions. If that right was violated, he can be sued.

Once a right is violated, he's acting outside his judicial capacity or act, and loses his absolute immunity from civil liability.

Taxing Matters, I really do appreciate your input, but I've learned to see the "within their judicial capacity and judicial acts" modifiers.

Judges are not immune to violate due process.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/15/u...hts-cases.html

I can sue and win an injunction plus lawyer fees

---

Once again your legal reasoning is flawed per Pulliam, but it won't do any good to say why, so why try?

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

Once a right is violated, he's acting outside his judicial capacity or act, and loses his absolute immunity from civil liability.

---

Wrong. A lawsuit for damages for a violation of your federal Constitutional rights is a §1983 claim. The Court opinions I quoted to you earlier specifically say judges are immune from from such lawsuits. A judge is immune from suit even if the plaintiff claims the judge acted out of malice or bad faith:

Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Accordingly, judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice, the existence of which ordinarily cannot be resolved without engaging in discovery and eventual trial. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S., at 554, 87 S.Ct., at 1218 (“[I]mmunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”). See also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815–819, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736–2739, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity).

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S. Ct. 286, 288, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1991).

As for the test for when a judge is acting in his judicial capacity, that is not based on whether the judge violated your right, as you claim. Rather, the U.S. Supreme Court has set out this test:

The relevant cases demonstrate that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a “judicial” one relate to the nature of the act itself, i. e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i. e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 1107, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978).

Under this test, a judge setting bail in a bail hearing is a classic situation of a judge exercising a judicial function. It is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties in the courtroom for that bail hearing clearly know they are before a court with a judge sitting in his judicial capacity.

A judge is only liable in a suit for damages for judicial acts if the judge had a complete lack of jurisdiction.

Rather, our cases make clear that the immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances. First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge's judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S., at 227–229, 108 S.Ct., at 544–545; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S., at 360, 98 S.Ct., at 1106. Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Id., at 356–357, 98 S.Ct., at 1104–1105; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 351.

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12, 112 S. Ct. 286, 288, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1991).

What is within a judge's jurisdiction is explained by the Tennessee courts as follows:

An act is within a judge's jurisdiction if the subject matter is within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, and the scope of the judge's jurisdiction is to be construed broadly in questions of judicial immunity, and immunity will not be removed unless there is a “clear absence of all jurisdiction”. Id.

Hickman v. Brown, No. E200202020COAR3CV, 2003 WL 192159, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2003).

But your claim is that the STATE lacked jurisdiction over non commercial use of vehicles. You are wrong on that, for the reasons I stated in your other thread. However, even if you were correct, that is a very different matter than whether the judge had jurisdiction to decide the bail issue. The law clearly gives judges the jurisdiction to decide bail for defendants charged with a crime — that is, setting bail is within the scope of the judge's jurisdiction. This for the judge's jurisdiction has nothing to do with the state's power to regulate noncommercial driving. Conflating the two is an application of poor logic.

As for that New York Times article, the Supreme Court's ruling in that case was very narrow: "We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity." Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541–42, 104 S. Ct. 1970, 1981, 80 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1984). Prospective injunctive relief cases are pretty rare, and yours is not a situation in which that kind of relief would apply. You cannot get money damages in such a case either though as the court said you could win attorney's fees if you won the injunction. The problem is that when proceeding pro se (without an attorney) you don't get attorney's fees for the simple reason that you had no attorney.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

Wrong. A lawsuit for damages for a violation of your federal Constitutional rights is a §1983 claim. The Court opinions I quoted to you earlier specifically say judges are immune from from such lawsuits. A judge is immune from suit even if the plaintiff claims the judge acted out of malice or bad faith:

Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Accordingly, judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice, the existence of which ordinarily cannot be resolved without engaging in discovery and eventual trial. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S., at 554, 87 S.Ct., at 1218 (“[I]mmunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”). See also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815–819, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736–2739, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity).

As for that New York Times article, the Supreme Court's ruling in that case was very narrow: "We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity." Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541–42, 104 S. Ct. 1970, 1981, 80 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1984). Prospective injunctive relief cases are pretty rare, and yours is not a situation in which that kind of relief would apply. You cannot get money damages in such a case either though as the court said you could win attorney's fees if you won the injunction. The problem is that when proceeding pro se (without an attorney) you don't get attorney's fees for the simple reason that you had no attorney.

---

All good Information, and I thank you.

The attorney fees I mentioned, would be for any lawyer that I could find to file an injunction. By what I previously posted, I think I can still sue under 1983 for relief from pretrial release and fees. I'm not concerned about monetary compensation from the judge.
Even though he initially denied me a Court appointed attorney, then let my bail remain excessive when I was later arrested, I simply want off pretrial. With my indigent status, by laws I've read, I shouldn't have been given such excessive bail and not be forced to pay pretrial fees.
Another thing I might could prove is violations of due process and get the case tossed.
I would then file suit against the police officers. By TCA codes, misdemeanors are to be released by signing a citation, unless for cause stated on the citation. That's why I need a copy of it. There's also another reason I need it. Traffic citations are also supposed to state if the license and vehicle are commercial. My previous one doesn't, and I doubt this one does either. Which would make the citations invalid, by my understanding. Again, thank you.
I believe I'll win in court on the charges, I just need relief from pretrial right now, so I'm not violated and arrested which would prevent my access to my legal materials and limit my research.

Edward, my thoughts exactly what TM posted, although I admit mine would not have been so legally eloquent.

The Judge in Pulliam argued that the award of Attorney's fees was legally equivalent to an award of Damages, which she enjoyed Judicial Immunity from. The SC found this argument to be without legal merit.

It sounds whacky because "You are suing a Judge", but at the same time "You are not suing a Judge", if that makes any sense.

Take this Mandamus case. A Federal Judge is being sued, but they're not being sued as in the accepted sense of a lawsuit for damages. As in a Complaint for Injunctive relief, a Mandamus Petition such as cited is seeking a judicial remedy, not damages.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...286/717/53240/


To end with, you will find it extremely difficult to convince an Attorney it is worth pursuing, as the Judge being sued will fight like a Tiger with case law and delays.

RJR, I appreciate your reply, and I agree it sounds wacky. That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Where to file for an injunction. District Court or Federal. I'm guessing in the judges individual capacity? I want it filed, where it'll be granted upon filing as a temporary stay of pretrial, because of my rights being repressed. I've read some cases about the limits of probation and apparently I'm required to be home every night, and that should exceed the limit, especially since this is just pretrial. I believe a federal or non corrupt circuit judge would grant immediately relief. I have no criminal record. My only offense have been minor traffic infractions, and none within 20 years except current. And the rules for indigenous says fees should be based on ability to pay. That a person can't be violated unless proved non-payment is wilful and not for lack of ability. Hopefully I can file.something soon and be approved for ECF to where I can do everything online, and that relief is granted.

I only agreed to pretrial under duress and it was only until March. The court date was put off because of covid, I never agreed to any extension, and my pretrial probation officer said I couldn't make a payment for 6 weeks because the order hadn't been sent from court extending it, but I still had to call in for those 6 weeks. Now it's back to office visits.

As to which court, your attorney will decide that, as again, going it Pro Se is not wise.

If you are not suing under a federal law, but strictly state related relief, you sue in State Court. The Pulliam case was filed under 1983, but the facts are very very important to determine where it will be filed. While state courts are not divested to entertain 1983 actions, if filed in state court, it will certainly be Petitioned to be removed under 28 USC 1441.

Quote:

---

Quoting RJR

---

As to which court, your attorney will decide that, as again, going it Pro Se is not wise.

If you are not suing under a federal law, but strictly state related relief, you sue in State Court. The Pulliam case was filed under 1983, but the facts are very very important to determine where it will be filed. While state courts are not divested to entertain 1983 actions, if filed in state court, it will certainly be Petitioned to be removed under 28 USC 1441.

---

My court appointed attorney can't even seem to get me a copy of the citation.

I'm hoping to file in federal because of excessive bail violations per US constitution and TN. I really need to spend the time and read the 110 page pdf I downloaded on federal courts. I represented myself pro se against a lawsuit in federal court 30 years ago with just library access, no internet, and won, but I had transportation back then. I'll figure something out soon.
I've even considered having the FBI investigate under 18 US 241 and 242. Lemuel Penn( a black military officer) was killed while traveling and his killers was found not guilty by a good oldboy's Georgia jury, and since they couldn't be tried again for the same crime, the feds sent them away 6 years for 18 US 241.
I just have to show that the use of an automobile is a right...and TN doesn't even grant authority to license anything but commercial.

Thank you for the info. This is one section of law that I haven't studied much. It pisses me off, and can't keep studying because of it. It shouldn't be that complicated. The law does grant exception for people that file pro se, but I need to at least file in the right court.

Quote:

---

Quoting RJR

---

While state courts are not divested to entertain 1983 actions, if filed in state court, it will certainly be Petitioned to be removed under 28 USC 1441.

---

I disagree with that statement. It is not automatic that the state would seek removal to a federal court. Indeed, often the state would prefer to have the case heard in its own courts rather than a federal court.

Quote:

---

Quoting Edward333

---

I just have to show that the use of an automobile is a right...and TN doesn't even grant authority to license anything but commercial.

---

You'll lose on both points. Driving is treated as a privilege rather than right, as the case law I gave you in the other thread clearly shows. And TN law does require ALL drivers to be licensed, not just commercial drivers. The courts have repeatedly held that the state has the power to enforce such a licensing requirement to the point that today to argue otherwise is treated as a frivolous argument and can subject you to possible sanctions.