ROY B. FOSTER, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS J. MACBRIDE ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
A federal district judge is not an employee of the United States for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and judges are immune from liability for acts within their judicial discretion.
Appellant sued the United States and a federal judge seeking damages for allegedly improper rulings in a prior action. The district court dismissed th…
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 Judicial Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of the appellant’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6). We affirm.
The appellant filed suit against the United States and Thomas J. MacBride, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking over $400,000 damages for certain allegedly improper rulings in another action over which Judge MacBride presided. Since judges are immune from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial discretion, Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F. 2d 59, 62 (9th Cir. 1974), dismissal of the complaint against Judge MacBride was proper. In the district court appellant failed to allege any basis for his claim against the United States. The district court held that the appellant thus failed to meet his burden of alleging a specific statute clearly authorizing suit against the United States for the damages asserted. See, e. g., Albert v. Brownell, 219 F. 2d 602 (9th Cir. 1955).
In his Brief on Appeal, appellant contends that the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., provides a proper jurisdictional basis for suit. However, a federal district judge in trying cases is a member of the independent judiciary and is not under the control of the United States. Therefore, he is not an “employee of the government” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1346. Cromelin v. United States, 177 F. 2d 275 (5th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 944, 70 S.Ct. 790, 94 L.Ed. 1359 (1950).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. LePATOUREL, 593 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. LePATOUREL, 571 F.2d 405 (8th Cir. 1978)
-
McQUADE v. United States, 839 F.2d 640 (9th Cir. 1988)
Authorities Cited
- Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1974)
- Cromelin v. United States, 177 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1949)
- Throckmorton v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 339 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1950)
- Cromelin v. United States, 339 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1950)
- Albert v. Brownell, 219 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1954)