Floyd P. Donley, Sr. VS Charles Reid
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 1217 FLOYD P DONLEY SR VERSUS CHARLES REID DA TE OF JUDGMENT DEC 2 2 010 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY FIIRST JUDICIAL DIS COURT RICT T NUMBER 2009 DIVISION F PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA 0004169 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLF ELIZABETH P WOLFE JUDGE Floyd P Donley Sr Amite Louisiana Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se Charles Reid Amite Louisiana DefendantAppel l ee Charles Reid BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND KLINE JJ Disposition AFFIRMED fhe Honorable William F Kline Jr is serving Iv rempor by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme e Court J KUHN This is an action for damages wherein the appellant Floyd P Donley Sr seeks to recover amounts that he expended in successfully appealing a battery conviction imposed by the Amite City Court s Donley petition asserts that his constitutional rights have been violated by appellee Charles Reid the Amite City magistrate causing him to incur legal expenses In response Reid filed a peremptory exception raising the objections of no cause or right of action asserting that Louisiana Revised Statute 33 affords him judicial immunity for all 2 C 441 official acts as a presiding officer of a mayor court s The trial court sustained s Reid peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissed Donley suit For the following reasons we affirm s I PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND In September 2008 Donley was involved in an incident on the prernises of Dirt Cheap during which one of the store employees called the Amite City police s to assist in evicting an alleged trespasser Donley An Amite City Police officer Officer Ordineaux responded to the call The store manager did not press trespassing charges but Officer Ordineaux initiated a complaint against Donley for battery of the store manager In December 2008 Donley appeared in the Amite City court and Reid acting in his capacity as magistrate of the court found him guilty of battery The appellant appealed this decision to the TwentyFirst Judicial District where the charges were dismissed in September 2009 In December 2009 Donley filed a civil action in the TwentyFirst Judicial District Court seeking to recover the expenses he incurred in appealing the Arnite City Court judgment In his petition Donley alleged that his due process rights 2 were violated because Reid failed to l inform him of the exact nature of the charges brought against him 2 arraign him before trial 3 terminate the trial when it became clear that the charges were not based on a valid city ordinance and 4 halt the trial when it becaane clear that he was hearing impaired and unable to properly handle his own defense The petition further alleged that the magistrate was biased because he considered perjured testimony Donley also claimed that Reid had no legal authority to act as magistrate or city attorney because the clerk of court could not produce recent documents to support Reid authority Donley s further averred that Reid deprived Donley of the right to act as his own attorney in the a system by not informing him of the time for filing a request for a trial ppeal de novo and of his right to a fair trial by failing to assure that all of Donley s requested documents needed for his pro se defense were forthcoming On March 23 2010 the trial court signed a judgment that sustained Reid s peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissed s Donley suit Donley has appealed urging that the trial court erred in sustaining the exception 11 ANALYSIS A reviewing court reviews an exception of no cause of action de novo because the exception of no cause of action raises a question of law and the trial s court decision is based solely on the sufficiency of the petition Louisiana State Bar Ass v Carr and Associates Inc 082114 p 1 La App 1 st Cir 05 n 09 08 15 So 158 167 writ denied 091627 La 10 21 So 292 The well 3d 09 30 3d pleaded facts in the petition are accepted as true in order to determine whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition Id The pertinent question 3 is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in the plaintiff favor the petition states any valid cause of action for relief Id s When the grounds of the objection pleaded by the peremptory exception may be removed by amendment of the petition the judgment sustaining the exception shall order such amendment within the delay allowed by the court La P C Art 934 If the grounds of the objection raised through the exception cannot be so removed the action shall be dismissed Id However the right to amend is qualified by the restriction that the grounds of the objections are curable Prudential Ins Co of America v CCF Baton Rouge Development Co 93 2074 p 13 La App 1st Cir 10 647 So 1131 1139 94 07 2d When the grounds of the objection cannot be removed by amendment the action shall be dismissed useless act Amendment is not permitted when it would constitute a vain and American Intern Gaming Ass Inc v Louisiana Riverboat n Gaming Com 002864 p 17 La App 1st Cir 09 838 So 5 18 n 02 11 2d s Donley petition seeks to recover damages from Reid based on his actions as a city court magistrate A magistrate is an attorney designated by the mayor as the presiding officer over a city court La R 33 S 441 Louisiana extends judicial immunity to city court magistrates as set forth in La R 33 which states as S 441 follows in pertinent part 1 A here T shall be a mayor court in the municipality s with jurisdiction over all violations of municipal ordinances The mayor may tr all breaches of the ordinances and impose fines or imprisonment or both provided for the infraction thereof 1 13 Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary the board of aldermen in its discretion may upon request of the mayor appoint one or more attorneys who shall be designated as 4 court magistrate and who shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor and may from time to time be designated by the mayor to serve in his stead as the presiding official over the mayor court Whenever a s magistrate is so designated by the mayor to preside over the mayor s court he shall exercise the powers and authority of the mayor over said court 2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary the board of aldermen in its discretion may upon request of the mayor appoint one or more attorneys who shall be designated as prosecutor and who shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor 2 C The presiding officer of a mayor court shall be entitled s to judicial immunity for his official acts as presiding officer in the same capacity as a judge in this state Judicial immunity is not statutorily defined but is jurisprudentially recognized in both federal and state courts The United States Supreme Court has recognized a long history of judicial immunity and its importance in protecting judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants Major v Painter 060470 p 5 La App 5th Cir 10 945 So 100 103 A judge is entitled 06 31 2d to absolute immunity where he performs judicial acts and he is immune from suit for damages resulting from any act performed in the judicial role regardless of his status in the judicial hierarchy Id Louisiana jurisprudence on judicial immunity mirrors the federal doctrine and does not allow a judge to be cast for damages if he has acted within his judicial capacity or jurisdiction and even if he has acted outside of his judicial capacity or jurisdiction he will remain protected unless his actions were based on malice or corruption Id Our courts have considered four factors in determining whether judges have acted in their judicial capacity and are afforded absolute judicial immunity four factors are These 1 whether the precise act complained of is a normal judicial 5 function 2 whether the acts occurred in the courtroom or appropriate adjunct spaces such as the judge chambers 3 whether the controversy centered around a s case pending before the court and 4 whether the acts arose directly out of a visit to the judge in his official capacity Haley v Leary 09 1626 p 2 La App 4th Cir 10 04 08 3d So While Donley asserts that Reid conduct deprived him of his constitutional s rights the allegations of the petition pertain to Reid actions in his capacity as a s magistrate while perfonning normal judicial functions The alleged acts occurred in the courtroom and pertained to the controversy pending before Reid court Thus s because Reid was acting in his judicial capacity as magistrate in the Amite City Court Reid was protected by the judicial immunity set forth in La S R 2 C 441 33 Therefore Reid is entitled to absolute judicial immunity unless the allegations of the petition otherwise assert that he acted both outside of his capacity or jurisdiction and with malice or corruption We note that the petition alleges that Reid did not have capacity to act as magistrate because the clerk of court could not produce documents to support s Reid authority as magistrate A magistrate authority does not rest on the clerk s of court ability to produce records it derives from the mayor request and the s s board of aldermen appointment pursuant to La R 33 Donley plead s S 441 1 13 no facts alleging that Reid was not duly appointed by the board of aldermen of Amite City therefore the petition does not allege that Reid did not act in a judicial capacity Further the petition alleges that the original battery charges were outside of the jurisdiction of the Amite City Court because battery is not a violation of an Amite City ordinance but rather an illdefined sic if any state law Amite City Ordinance 2011 11 defines the crime of battery as the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another or the intentional administration old a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another Therefore the charge of battery asserted against Donley was within the jurisdiction of the Amite City Court over which the magistrate had authority to preside Moreover even if we were to conclude that the petition allegations were s sufficient to establish that Reid acted outside of his capacity or jurisdiction the petition does not assert facts when accepted as true which constitute malice or corruption Accordingly based on our de novo review of the petition in a light most favorable to the petitioner we conclude that Reid is protected by the judicial immunity set forth in La R 33 and the petition fails to state a valid S 441 2 C cause of action Because it is apparent that Donley cannot remove the grounds of the objection by amendment of his petition we conclude that a remand for that purpose would be futile Ill CONCLUSION Based on the allegations of the petition we conclude that Reid acted in his official capacity as magistrate and is entitled to the judicial immunity afforded to the presiding officer of a mayor court by La R 33 441 Accordingly we s S C 2 affirm the trial court judgment that sustained Reid peremptory exception raising s s 7 the objection of no cause of action and dismissed Donley claims Appeal costs are s assessed against plaintiffappellant Floyd P Donley Sr AFFIRMED Although Donley filed this lawsuit in forniv pauperis since he was an unsuccessful litigant appeals costs may be assessed against him Johnson v State Dept of Social Services 05 1597 p 11 n La App 1st Cir 06 943 So 374 381 n writ denied 062866 La 10 09 2d 10 07 02 948 So 1085 see also La C arts 5186 and 5188 2d P 8
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.
