Opinion
Case No. A2-99-78.
Filed July 12, 1999.
Summary : Court determined that defendant, a North Dakota state district court judge, enjoys immunity from suit for judicial actions in an underlying state divorce proceeding, granted defendant's motion to dismiss, and dismissed plaintiff's complaint and cause of action.
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss, (docket # 3). The Court construes item one in the document filed by plaintiff entitled "Opposition of Plaintiff to Motion to Dismiss" as a motion by plaintiff for an extension. Finding nothing to support or justify plaintiff's motion for an extension, (docket # 5), it is hereby DENIED.
This action concerns plaintiff's allegations of wrongdoing and damages resulting from actions taken by defendant, a North Dakota state district court judge, in a pending divorce case in which plaintiff Lindholm is defendant. Defendant Bohlman presents several legal theories upon which dismissal of this action could be appropriately based, specifically, that plaintiff's claims are barred by absolute judicial immunity, that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions, and that this Court should decline to act under the doctrine of abstention or as a matter of comity. Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff specifically alleges his damages result from actions taken by the defendant, a judge, in an action pending in District Court, Grand Forks, North Dakota. See Compl. at ¶ 2. Clearly, plaintiff's Complaint is based upon the defendant's actions in the state court divorce proceeding. Plaintiff's grievances are about judicial acts by the district court judge acting within his jurisdiction; thus, the defendant enjoys absolute judicial immunity from suit in this instance. See Liles v. Reagan, 804 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1986) (providing that a "judge is entitled to absolute immunity if the acts complained of were `judicial acts' and were not taken in the `clear absence of all jurisdiction') (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978)). Plaintiff's attempt to duck the judicial immunity bar to this suit is disingenuous, or at best naive.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court finds it unnecessary to address the defendant's arguments relating to abstention, comity, and this Court's lack of jurisdiction to review state court decisions. Because that defendant enjoys immunity from suit for judicial actions in the underlying state divorce proceeding, the defendant's motion to dismiss, (docket # 3), is GRANTED. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint and cause of action is DISMISSED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
IT IS SO ORDERED.