Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,126

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post
    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    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.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    425

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    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?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,126

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    Quote Quoting Edward333
    View Post

    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    425

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    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.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    425

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    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.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,126

    Default Re: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    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
    View Post
    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.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Deprivation of Civil Rights: Excessive Bail-Lawsuit
    By Edward333 in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-11-2020, 04:50 PM
  2. Bail, Bond and Pretrial Release: How to Reduce Excessive Bail
    By Biggy in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-17-2018, 10:27 AM
  3. Bail, Bond and Pretrial Release: Recovery of Excessive Bail
    By lawfacts in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-25-2016, 01:20 PM
  4. Bail, Bond and Pretrial Release: Excessive Bail Charged, in Violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
    By KevinBadiei in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-28-2012, 11:16 AM
  5. Traffic Court Issues: My Bail Seems Excessive
    By blau in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 12:58 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources