Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 15, 2024

Kimner v. Currie

Judge
Pitts
Docket
5:24-cv-04480
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Kimner v. Currie, Judge Pitts granted a fee waiver and dismissed claims against two judges because judicial immunity barred relief.

Who this affects

Audrey L. Kimner’s claims against District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie and Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges were dismissed without leave to amend; Kimner’s request to proceed without paying filing fees was granted.

What happened

Audrey L. Kimner sued District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie and Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, who are judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. She asked to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court granted that request.

The court screened the complaint as required for cases filed without filing fees. It concluded that the challenged actions—including orders and decisions about recusal, hearings, and appeals—were judicial acts. Judges are generally protected from civil liability for such acts, and the complaint did not suggest that either judge acted without jurisdiction.

The court dismissed Kimner’s claims against both defendants without leave to amend. Judge P. Casey Pitts issued the order on August 15, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kimner v. Currie · No. 5:24-cv-04480
Judge
Pitts
Date
Aug. 15, 2024

Background

Audrey L. Kimner filed a civil action against District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie and Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Kimner moved to proceed without paying filing fees. The court granted that motion.

Screening and judicial immunity

Because Kimner was proceeding without paying filing fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) required the court to review the complaint, including to determine whether it sought relief from an immune defendant. The court applied the principle of absolute judicial immunity, which generally protects judges from civil liability for actions taken in their judicial roles.

The court said that the challenged actions—including issuing orders and making decisions about recusal, hearings, and appeals—were clearly judicial in nature. A judge does not lose this protection merely because an action was erroneous, malicious, or beyond the judge’s authority. The opinion states that immunity is lost only when a judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. The complaint did not suggest that Currie or Hodges acted without jurisdiction.

Disposition

Because Kimner sought relief from defendants who were absolutely immune from civil liability, the court dismissed her claims against them without leave to amend. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Judge P. Casey Pitts signed the order on August 15, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.