Haley v. Cheryl G. Leary.

• Decision Date: 17 December 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2009–CA–1626.,2009–CA–1626.
• Citation: 69 So.3d 430
• Parties: Dwayne HALEYv.Cheryl G. LEARY.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

69 So.3d 430

Dwayne HALEY

v.Cheryl G. LEARY.

No. 2009–CA–1626.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2010.Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 2010.Writ Denied Dec. 17, 2010.

Dwayne Haley, Harvey, LA, In Proper Person, Plaintiff/Appellant.David G. Sanders, Assistant Attorney General, Bridget B. Denicola, Assistant Attorney General, James D. “Buddy” Caldwell, Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, for The Honorable Greg G. Guidry, The Honorable Bernadette Johnson, The Honorable Pascal Calogero, The Honorable Chet Traylor, The Honorable Jeffery Victory and The Honorable Catherine Kimball.(Court composed of Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., and Judge ROLAND L. BELSOME).CHARLES R. JONES, Judge.

[4 Cir. 1] The Plaintiff–Appellant, Dwayne Haley, appeals the judgment of the district court, dismissing his Expedited Rule to Show Cause and Rule for Contempt. We affirm.

The present matter was embarked upon due to Mr. Haley having failed to prevail in a contentious child custody proceeding with the defendant-appellee, Cheryl Leary. On November 11, 2002, Mr. Haley filed a Petition for joint custody as well as a Motion to Determine the Best Interests of the Minor. Upon review, the district court denied the motions. Mr. Haley filed writ applications to this Court, which were denied. He also filed writ applications to the Louisiana Supreme Court, where the writs were also denied.

Subsequently, Mr. Haley filed an Expedited Rule to Show Cause and Rule for Contempt in the district court, and made defendants in rule were: Judge Herbert Cade, who presided over his trial; the panel of judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal who denied his appeal; and the members of the Louisiana Supreme Court who denied his writ application. On April 14, 2009, the Expedited Rule to Show Cause and Rule for Contempt were dismissed without prejudice, and [4 Cir. 2] the judgment was signed on August 26, 2009. In dismissing his Expedited Rule to Show Cause and Rule for Contempt, the court explained that essentially, Mr. Haley was asking the district court to order the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court to consider the best interests of the child; however, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief. This timely appeal of that judgment followed.

On appeal, Mr. Haley argues that the district court erred in denying his Expedited Rule to Show Cause and Rule for Contempt because the judges and justices who denied the best interests of his minor child “lawfully abandoned and exposed the child” to harm. Furthermore, Mr. Haley argues that the body of judges and justices are responsible for the best interest of the minor child and any cost which may accrue.

The State, representing the judges and justices through the attorney general in this matter, argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by Mr. Haley. In addition, the State argues that the claims of Mr. Haley are barred by judicial immunity because the judges and justices were acting within the scope of their judicial functions.

While Mr. Haley has argues that the judges and justices “denied the best interest [sic] of the minor” and that “they lawfully abandoned and exposed the child” to harm, we find that the matter before us is whether the district court erred in denying the Expedited Rule to Show Cause and Rule of Contempt of Mr. Haley. After a review of the record, we further find the district court did not err in its judgment.

This Court reviews the denial of the Expedited Rule to Show Cause and Rule for Contempt under the manifest error or clearly wrong standard. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989). It is well settled that “appellate courts may [4 Cir. 3] not disturb the fact findings of the trier of fact in the absence of manifest error.” Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987) (citing to Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330, 1333 (La.1979)). In reviewing the decisions of the district court, this court must determine from the record if there is a reasonable factual basis for the findings of the district court and if the record establishes that the findings are not clearly wrong. Id.

A review of the record reveals an absence of manifest error due to the factual basis of the district court finding that judicial immunity is applicable in the instant matter, and the record establishes that this determination is not clearly wrong.

It has long been held on the grounds of necessity and public policy that judges acting within the scope of their subject matter jurisdiction cannot be held liable for the acts done in their judicial capacities. Knapper v. Connick, 96–0434 (La.1996) 681 So.2d 944, 946. It is also settled that,

The immunity is extended because of the function it protects rather than the title of the person who claims it. Absolute immunity attaches to all acts within a judge's jurisdiction, even if those acts can be shown to have been performed with malice, in order to insure that all judges will be free to fulfill their responsibilities without the threat of civil prosecution by disgruntled litigants.

Id.

In order to determine whether the actions of a judge (or justices) are “judicial in nature,” there are four factors this Court considers:

1. whether the precise act complained of is a normal judicial function;

2. whether the acts occurred in the courtroom or appropriate adjunct spaces such as the judge's...