Hartsoe v. McNeil
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Montana Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Montana Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiff filed an action against a district court judge, seeking damages for the judge's acts or omissions while presiding over a telephone pretrial conference in a civil action then pending before him. At all relevant times the judge was acting in his official capacity as a district court judge with regard to that case and the pretrial conference. The district court granted the judge's motion to dismiss on the grounds of judicial immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the acts of which Plaintiff complained occurred while the judge was conducting the pretrial conference and were clearly within the authority and responsibility of a district court judge, the judge was immune from suit, and the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's complaint.
Download PDF
October 9 2012 DA 12-0141 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 221 JOHN HARTSOE, Petitioner and Appellant, v. HON. C. B. McNEIL, Presiding for the Twentieth Judicial District, Respondent and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DV 11-324 Honorable Loren Tucker, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: John L. Hartsoe, (self-represented litigant); Deer Lodge, Montana For Appellee: Margaret A. Sampsel; Special Assistant Attorney General, Risk Management & Tort Defense Division, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: September 19, 2012 Decided: October 9, 2012 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 John Hartsoe appeals from the District Court s dismissal of his complaint against Hon. C. B. McNeil (McNeil). We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Hartsoe filed a civil action against McNeil, seeking damages for McNeil s acts or omissions while acting as a Montana District Court Judge and presiding over a telephone pretrial conference in a civil action then pending before him, Heisel v. Hartsoe, No. DV10-353, Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court. Hartsoe alleged in his complaint that he was suing Judge McNeil for actions taken in his official duty, including using vulgar language, failing to accomplish any results at the conference, and not having a reporter to record the proceeding. At all relevant times McNeil was acting in his official capacity as a Montana District Court Judge with regard to that case and the pretrial conference. ¶3 McNeil appeared in the present action and moved to dismiss on the grounds of judicial immunity. Hartsoe did not respond to the motion. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, with prejudice. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶4 This Court reviews de novo a district court s decision on a motion to dismiss. Grizzly Sec. Armored Express v. The Armored Grp., 2011 MT 128, ¶ 11, 360 Mont. 517, 255 P.2d 143. 2 DISCUSSION ¶5 Judges are immune from suit for damages arising out of the lawful discharge of their official duties. Section 2-9-112(2), MCA. Judicial immunity applies with no stated limitation, Silverstone v. Park Co., 2007 MT 261, ¶ 14, 339 Mont. 299, 170 P.3d 950, and judges are absolutely immune from suit for civil damages for acts performed in their judicial capacities. Steele v. McGregor, 1998 MT 85, ¶ 16, 288 Mont. 238, 956 P.2d 1364. Judicial immunity is a public policy designed to safeguard principles of independent decision making. Mead v. McKittrick, 223 Mont. 428, 430, 727 P.2d 517, 519 (1984). The principles of judicial immunity are well established in the United States. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099 (1978). ¶6 Hartsoe plead in his complaint that Judge McNeil was acting in his official duty with regard to this case. The acts that Hartsoe complains of occurred while Judge McNeil was conducting a pretrial conference in a pending case. This is clearly within the authority and responsibility of a district court judge. Therefore there can be no question that Judge McNeil is immune from suit and that the District Court properly dismissed Hartsoe s complaint. ¶7 Hartsoe raises numerous issues and contentions in his appeal which he did not raise below and which, in any event, do not affect the clear conclusion that Judge McNeil is entitled to judicial immunity from suit. ¶8 Affirmed. /S/ MIKE McGRATH 3 We concur: /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ JIM RICE /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT /S/ BRIAN MORRIS 4
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.
