STERLING MAURICE WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ALFONSO C. SEPE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that procedural irregularities in a contempt proceeding do not constitute a clear absence of all jurisdiction, and thus do not abrogate judicial immunity.
Plaintiff sued a judge under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, alleging the judge failed to follow proper procedure for indirect contempt. The plaintiff argued this…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indirect Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, brought by Sterling M. Williams against Judge Alfonso C. Sepe, was terminated by the district court’s granting summary judgment to Judge Sepe on the ground that the undisputed facts did not fall within the “clear absence of all juris-, diction” exception to the doctrine of judicial immunity. We affirm.
The record clearly establishes that in attempting to investigate a report that Williams had misrepresented himself as the Judge’s law clerk, Judge Sepe failed to comply with the procedure for prosecuting an indirect contempt' of court. Specifically, Williams was not given “written notice of the criminal contempt charged,” as required by Rule 3.840 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., before he was ordered arrested by Judge Sepe. It is Williams’ contention that the deviation from the statutory procedure resulted in an absence of subject matter jurisdiction and that the Judge, therefore, is not shielded by judicial immunity.
While it may be true that the procedural irregularities would necessitate a reversal of a conviction if one had been obtained on the facts of this case, see, e. g., State ex rel. Giblin v. Sullivan, 1946, 157 Fla. 496, 26 So. 2d 509, the test for the abrogation of judicial immunity is whether there is a clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Bradley v. Fisher, 1872, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U.S. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646. The policy underlying the doctrine requires that its application not depend on the determination of “nice questions of jurisdiction.” Sullivan v. Kelleher, 1 Cir. 1968, 405 F. 2d 486, 487. The defects in the procedure employed in this case will not support a conclusion that there was a clear absence of all jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berry v. State, 400 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
-
Rivello v. Cooper City, 322 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
-
Dykes v. A.J. Hosemann, Jr., 776 F.2d 942 (11th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (U.S. 1871)
- Pargoud v. United States, 13 Wall. 156 (U.S. 1871)
- State v. Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1946)
- Crown v. Coleman, 157 Fla. 463 (Fla. 1946)
- Sullivan v. Kelleher, 405 F.2d 486 (1st Cir. 1968)