Cross v. Bates-Anderson et al, No. 2:2016cv11626 - Document 16 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: Granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Party Candice Bates-Anderson (In her official capacity as Chief Judge for Juvenile Court) is dismissed. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/24/2016. (ajn)

Download PDF
Cross v. Bates-Anderson et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAPHNE CROSS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 16-11626 CANDICE BATES-ANDERSON, ET AL. SECTION: "A" (4) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S The following m otion is before the Court: Mo tio n to D is m is s ( Re c. D o c. 13 ) filed by defendant J udge Candice Bates-Anderson. Plaintiff Daphne Cross (pro se), m other of the m inor X.F., has not filed an opposition to the m otion. The m otion, noticed for subm ission on October 19, 20 16, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argum ent. Plaintiff Daphne Cross has filed this § 1983 com plaint pro se on behalf of her m inor son X.F. According to her com plaint, J uvenile Court J udge Candice BatesAnderson presided over X.F.’s case wherein he was placed in the custody of the Bridge City Center for Youth at the age of 15. Plaintiff com plains that notwithstanding som e prior abuse at Bridge City Center that X.F. had endured in Septem ber 20 14, the judge decided to keep him there. On J une 25, 20 15, X.F. was attacked by som e other youths and had to be rushed to Children’s Hospital to have his ear sewn back on. Defendant Cody Sm ith was an em ployee of Bridge City and the Court gleans from the com plaint that Plaintiff believes that Sm ith lied in Court about X.F.’s case. Defendant Lem oyne Reine was X.F.’s probation officer, and defendant Daphne J ohnson Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com was Reine’s supervisor. Plaintiff alleges generally that her son’s federal constitutional rights were violated by the defendants acting together. 1 Defendant Bates-Anderson m oves to dism iss all claim s against her. The m otion m ust be granted as to this defendant in her official capacity. The well-settled law is that state officials in their official capacities are not “persons” under § 198 3. See W ill v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). The m otion m ust also be granted as to claim s asserted against this defendant in her personal capacity. It is well-settled that judicial officers enjoy absolute im m unity from claim s for dam ages arising out of acts perform ed in the exercise of their judicial discretion. See Boy d v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5 th Cir. 1994) (citing Graves v. Ham pton, 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5 th Cir. 1993)). The only exceptions to this im m unity arise when the acts are nonjudicial in nature or when the judge acts in the com plete absence of all jurisdiction. Id. (citing Mireles v. W aco, 50 2 U.S. 9 (1991)). Giving the com plaint the broadest interpretation, it is clear that the claim s against J udge Bates-Anderson derive from actions that she took in her judicial capacity, and that no exception to absolute judicial im m unity applies. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reason s; 1 Plaintiff has also sued Ms. Tenee Felix, X.F.’s attorney. Page 2 of 3 IT IS ORD ERED that the Mo tio n to D is m is s ( Re c. D o c. 13 ) filed by defendant J udge Candice Bates-Anderson is GRAN TED . All claim s against this defendant are dism issed. October 24, 20 16 J AY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE Page 3 of 3

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.