Unpublished Disposition, 867 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 867 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1989)

Lorraine ANTRUM, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Donna FITZSIMMONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-5820.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  Jan. 26, 1989.Decided Jan. 30, 1989.

Before HUG, SCHROEDER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


Lorraine Antrum appeals pro se and in forma pauperis the district court's grant of Donna K. Fitzsimmons' and Leonore LeBlanc's motion to dismiss Antrum's negligence complaint against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), as well as the district court's denial of her motion to remand the case to state court. We affirm.

Antrum's complaint against Fitzsimmons and LeBlanc, two district court court reporters involved in the reporting of Antrum's action against her employer, Midway Hospital, was originally filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Antrum alleged that they negligently or intentionally lost, or refused to produce, a portion of the transcript Antrum had requested in connection with her appeal in Antrum v. Midway Hospital, No. 86-5559. Fitzsimmons and LeBlanc removed the case to district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a).

There, they filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) on the grounds that they were immune under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. Antrum filed a motion for the court to remand the action to state court on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over the claim.

The district court found that it had jurisdiction and denied the motion for remand and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Antrum apparently contends that because the act of Fitzsimmons and LeBlanc in allegedly not producing the requested portion of trial transcript was intentional, it was outside the scope of their employment as court reporters and therefore, deprived them of both a proper basis for removal, and, an immunity defense.

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) expressly authorizes removal of suits against judicial officers for money damages in state court. See Mir v. Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342, 344-45 (9th Cir. 1980); Cook v. Peter Kiewit & Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, Cook v. Peter Kiewit & Sons Co., 476 U.S. 1183 (1986). This action involves Fitzsimmons' and LeBlanc's conduct while they were acting under color of office and in the performance of their duties as federal quasi-judicial officers. Court reporters and court clerks are immune from damage suits brought by plaintiffs who complain that they have not been properly furnished with that portion of the transcript of a prior trial containing closing argument. Stewart v. Minnick, 409 F2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969); see Barr v. Mateo, 360 U.S. 564, 569 (1959). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the action. Its judgment is



Antrum requests oral argument but the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3