Unpublished Disposition, 930 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1990)

No. 90-55962.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before SCHROEDER and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and KING,^**  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^*** 

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, pro se plaintiff Kenneth Jones appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint. We hold that the defendant, a California administrative law judge, enjoys judicial immunity and we affirm.

In July 1984, Jones filed a workers' compensation claim with the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Jones claimed to have suffered a psychological injury stemming from his employment at Greyhound Lines, Inc., which allegedly rendered him totally disabled. Jones' case was tried in early 1986 before the defendant, Lester Volchok, a workers' compensation judge. In April 1986, Volchok issued factual findings which concluded that Jones did not sustain a disabling injury arising out of his employment with Greyhound. The Appeals Board denied Jones' petition for reconsideration.

In February 1990, Jones filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Volchok. Jones alleged, in essence, that Volchok had violated Jones' civil rights by denying his workers' compensation claim. On April 25, 1990, Volchok filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 1, 1990, a federal magistrate recommended that the action be dismissed on grounds of judicial immunity. The district judge adopted the magistrate's recommendation in an order dated June 27, 1990. Jones now appeals the dismissal of his complaint.

It is well-established that " [j]udges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities." Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978). The doctrine of judicial immunity is applicable to administrative law judges performing judicial functions. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 513-14 (1978); Jones v. Singer Career Sys., 584 F. Supp. 1253, 1256-57 (E.D. Ark. 1984); Jordan v. Hawaii Gov't Employees' Ass'n, 472 F. Supp. 1123, 1127-28 (D. Haw. 1979). Judicial immunity is applicable in suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Stump, 435 U.S. at 355; Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).

The scope of judicial immunity is broad: "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority." Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-57. A judge lacks immunity only when performing an act that is not "judicial" in nature, or when acting "in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075.

Here, the defendant's actions were indisputably "judicial" in nature. The plaintiff's complaint challenges the defendant's decision as a state administrative judge presiding over a workers' compensation case. The plaintiff's allegations address only the propriety of the judge's actions in rendering a decision on the merits of plaintiff's claim. This is exactly the type of act to which judicial immunity is intended to apply. See Stump, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990) (hearing cases and entering orders are "essence" of judicial role).

It is also beyond dispute that the judge in this case was not acting "in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." The plaintiff concedes that he filed his initial claim before the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. California law gives workers' compensation judges jurisdiction and adjudicative responsibility in workers' compensation proceedings before them. Fremont Indem. Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd., 153 Cal. App. 3d 965, 974, 200 Cal. Rptr. 762, 767 (Cal.Ct.App.1984). Volchok's actions were taken pursuant to the workers' compensation court's jurisdiction over Jones' claim.

Because Volchok's disposition of the plaintiff's claim was clearly a judicial act, performed in his capacity as a California workers' compensation judge, Volchok enjoys absolute immunity for those acts. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Jones' complaint.

Volchok's request for fees is denied.

AFFIRMED.