judge who imprisoned plaintiff under repealed summary commitment statute entitled to absolute immunity
How later courts described this case
- judge who imprisoned plaintiff under repealed summary commitment statute entitled to absolute immunity
- providing immunity in face of failure to comply with the procedure for prosecuting an indirect contempt
- a judge's failure to comply with procedure for prosecuting an indirect contempt of court did not result in the clear absence of all jurisdiction such as to divest judge of absolute judicial immunity
- “. . . Judge Sepe failed to comply with the procedure for prosecuting an indirect contempt.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
This action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 , brought by Sterling M. Williams against Judge Alfonso C. Sepe, was terminated by the district court’s granting summary judgment to Judge Sepe on the ground that the undisputed facts did not fall within the “clear absence of all juris-, diction” exception to the doctrine of judicial immunity. We affirm.
The record clearly establishes that in attempting to investigate a report that Williams had misrepresented himself as the Judge’s law clerk, Judge Sepe failed to comply with the procedure for prosecuting an indirect contempt' of court. Specifically, Williams was not given “written notice of the criminal contempt charged,” as required by Rule 3.840 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., before he was ordered arrested by Judge Sepe. It is Williams’
*914
contention that the deviation from the statutory procedure resulted in an absence of subject matter jurisdiction and that the Judge, therefore, is not shielded by judicial immunity.
While it may be true that the procedural irregularities would necessitate a reversal of a conviction if one had been obtained on the facts of this case, see, e. g., State ex rel. Giblin v. Sullivan, 1946, 157 Fla. 496 , 26 So.2d 509 , the test for the abrogation of judicial immunity is whether there is a
clear
absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Bradley v. Fisher, 1872, 13 Wall. 335 , 80 U.S. 335 , 20 L.Ed. 646 . The policy underlying the doctrine requires that its application not depend on the determination of “nice questions of jurisdiction.” Sullivan v. Kelleher, 1 Cir. 1968, 405 F. 2d 486, 487 . The defects in the procedure employed in this case will not support a conclusion that there was a clear absence of all jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court is therefore
Affirmed.