Ray v. Hammond et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 9 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/18/19. (kmt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RAYMOND ALEXANDER RAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA HAMMOND, and
KEVIN McCRAY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-19-353-D

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [Doc. No. 9] of
United States Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones, to whom this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
was referred for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge
Jones recommends that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. Within the time
limits authorized by the Court, Plaintiff filed objections [Doc. Nos. 10, 11]. Accordingly,
the Court must make a de novo determination of any portion of the Report to which a
specific objection is made, and may accept, modify, or reject the recommended decision in
whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report mirror his allegations in his Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Oklahoma County District Court Special Judge Lisa
Hammond violated his due process rights by failing to timely hold a probable cause hearing
and denying his bond without a hearing. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Oklahoma County
District Court Special Judge Kevin McCray set his bond excessively high, in violation of

the Eighth Amendment, and violated his due process rights by allowing Plaintiff to be
arraigned on charges that were filed one day late.
Even assuming the veracity of Plaintiff’s allegations, judges have absolute judicial
immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355357 (1978). This doctrine has only two exceptions: “First, a judge is not immune from
liability for … actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity.” Mireles v. Waco, 502
U.S. 9, 11 (1991). “Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature,
taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 12. To this end, “[a] judge will not
be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or
was in excess of his authority.” Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-357. “[T]he scope of the judge’s
jurisdiction must be construed broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge.” Id.
at 356.
Here, Plaintiff has not set forth any facts suggesting Defendants acted outside their
judicial capacity. Nor does Plaintiff allege that Defendants acted without any jurisdiction
to do so. Therefore, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim
against Defendants because they are entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff’s suit
under federal law based on their judicial actions.
Accordingly, Judge Jones’ Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as though
fully set forth herein. This action is dismissed with prejudice. A judgment shall be issued
forthwith.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October 2019.

3