Whether a parent facilitator was entitled to judicial immunity when the actions she took in a child custody case were done maliciously and in excess of her authority

PRESENTED Whether a parent facilitator was entitled to judicial immunity when the actions she took in a child custody case were done maliciously involving her false irrelevant testimony, acted in excess of her authority and her dangerous actions ultimately placed the children back into the abusive situation proved by information filed by the children ’s mother in a recent divorce decree. Whether a parent facilitator is entitled to attorney fees claiming judicial immuni ty The case of Pulliam v. Allen established that judicial immunity doesn't bar attorney fees under 42 U.S;C. § 1988 in cases where prospective injunctive relief is granted against a judicial officer. However, Congress later amended the statute to preclude such awards unless the judicial officer acted clearly in excess of their jurisdiction. This suggests that there is not an automatic right to attorney fees simply because one claims immunity from suit. Harns v. Harvey 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979) One significant case where a judge was sued and did not receive immunity is Harris v. Harvey. Sylvester Harris, an African-American police lieutenant in Racine. Wisconsin. was attacked in a variety of ways by Judge Richard G. Harvey. Harris sued Harvey because of (a) comments Harvey made to the news media, (b) threatening letters Harvey wrote to city and county officials who attempted to defend Harris, and (c) parties Harvey held for ranking state officials during which he attempted to get Harris removed from law enforcement. The juiy concluded that Harvey was not eligible for judicial immunity for these actions, as such acts were not part of the judge's normal duties (i.e. they were "outside his jurisdiction"). The jury awarded Harris $260,000 in damages. Another judge later added $7,500 in legal fees. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concurred with the jury's decision. Judge Harvey petitioned the Seventh Circuit court for an gnbanc rehearing, and petitioned to the Supreme Court, both of which were denied. Harris v. Harvey is the first case in the United States where a sitting court judge has been sued and lost in a civil action; it is a bidding precedent in the Seventh Circuit and is persuasive authority in the other circuits. Rosales v. Bradshaw, et al., No. 22-2027 (10th Cir. 2023) This case arose from events involving Defendant-appellant David Bradshaw, a sheriffs deputy who was off duty, out of uniform, and driving his personal vehicle with his child in the front passenger seat. After a vehicle being driven by Plaintiff-appellant Mario Rosales legally passed Bradshaw, Bradshaw decided to follow Rosales. He then declined backup assistance from another deputy, followed Rosales all the way home, blocked Rosales in his driveway, and began shouting and yelling at Rosales, all before identifying himself as law enforcement. In response, Rosales became afraid and exited his vehicle with a legal and openly earned gun in his pants pocket, intending to protect himself and his property but also to deescalate the situation. Bradshaw, however, continued to shout and pointed his gun at Rosales. Though Rosales feared being shot, he remained calm and nonthreatening throughout the encounter. When Bradshaw eventually identified himself as law enforcement and told Rosales to put his gun back in his vehicle, Rosales complied, and the encounter wound down from there. As a result of this incident, Bradshaw ’s employment was terminated, and he was convicted in state court of aggravated assault and child endangerment. Rosales then.filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging in.part that Bradshaw violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The district court granted Bradshaw ’s motion to dismiss, ruling that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law when he unreasonably pointed his gun at Rosales. The critical distingui shing fact, for the district court, was that Rosales was armed