Simes, II v. Arkansas Judicial D. & D. Comm, et al., No. 12-3564 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, the first African-American circuit court judge elected in Phillips County, Arkansas, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the commission and officials during the disciplinary proceedings against him. The district court denied plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and stayed proceedings in accordance with the Younger abstention doctrine. The state disciplinary proceedings ended with a decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The district court then granted the commission and officials' Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, finding no justifiable federal controversy. The court concluded that Defendant Stewart, Executive Director of the commission, was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity as to plaintiff's claims for damages on the first cause of action; plaintiff had no justiciable claim for damages against any defendant in the second cause of action where plaintiff's allegations amounted to nothing more than a state law defamation claim and the district court did not abuse its discretion; and plaintiff's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. In a Section 1983 action challenging disciplinary proceedings brought before the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, a member of the Commission, who essentially acted as the Commission's prosecutor by selecting which complaints against Simes should be pursued, was entitled to absolute immunity for his actions; while prosecutorial immunity does not absolutely shield statements to the press, the Commission member's statements did not implicate constitutional rights and the district court did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction over what it concluded were nothing more than state law defamation claims; district court did not err in concluding Simes's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.