No. 23-809

Peter Kleidman v. Martin R. Barash, Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-01-26
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: brown-vs-board civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-tort due-process equitable-relief federal-judges free-speech judicial-immunity prospective-injunction pulliam-precedent standing
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-03-15
Question Presented (from Petition)

Are federal judges immune from claims for equitable relief? Pulliam v. Allen, 466 US 522 (1984) held "that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity." Id., 541-542. Pulliam pertained to state-court judges. Does Pulliam also hold for federal judges?

Does a litigant in federal court have any right of action to protect him/herself from a federal judge's constitutional torts occurring dehors the written record?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Are federal judges immune from claims for equitable relief?

Docket Entries

2024-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2024.
2024-02-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Main DocumentMain Document
2024-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 26, 2024)
PetitionProof of ServiceAppendixCertificate of Word CountPetitionAppendixProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count

Attorneys

Peter Kleidman
Peter Kleidman — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent