Errol Stewart Tierney, who pleaded guilty to felony hit-and-run in San Bernardino County Superior Court last year and received two years' probation, sued Judge William Jefferson Powell IV and three other state court judges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in January. Tierney alleged that Powell issued an arrest warrant based on 'an affidavit by an attorney with no first hand knowledge of events' and claimed that Judges Mazurek, Cortez, and Martinez committed unspecified wrongs while presiding over different stages of his criminal case. He sought between $35 million and $200 million in damages plus declaratory relief.
Judge Murillo ruled that all the defendants were protected by absolute judicial immunity, which shields judges from civil lawsuits over their official actions. 'The four named judges in Plaintiff's complaint (as well as any of the judges listed as putative defendants in Plaintiff's 'affidavits of truth') enjoy absolute judicial immunity for the actions and decisions each made in his criminal case,' Murillo wrote. The judge noted that this immunity extends beyond monetary damages to cover 'actions for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief.'
The court emphasized the broad scope of judicial immunity, noting that it 'applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly.' Murillo also extended immunity to any prosecutors Tierney might sue, writing that 'they too enjoy prosecutorial immunity for the actions and decisions each made in the underlying criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.'
Tierney's case faced procedural hurdles before reaching its final dismissal. The court had twice ordered him to show cause in February and March why his complaint should not be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim. During this period, Tierney filed additional 'affidavits of truth' expanding his potential defendants to include 'not only the prosecutors but also nearly every other state court judge involved in his criminal case at some point.'
Judge Murillo found that Tierney failed to address the immunity issue despite multiple opportunities to do so. 'Each time, Plaintiff never addressed—much less seriously disputed—the immunity from suit that each of the named (or even putative) defendants enjoy,' the court wrote. The judge determined that allowing Tierney to amend his complaint would be futile since 'no amendment of the complaint can overcome that legal immunity.'
The dismissal highlights the robust protection that judicial immunity provides to state court judges in civil rights lawsuits. The doctrine, rooted in Supreme Court precedent dating back to the 1960s, is designed to ensure that judges can make decisions without fear of personal liability, even when their rulings are unpopular or later found to be incorrect.
The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning Tierney cannot refile the same claims against these defendants. The ruling underscores the high bar plaintiffs face when attempting to sue judges over their official conduct, particularly in cases arising from criminal proceedings where the plaintiff was ultimately convicted.