Perkins, Robert v. Lew, Jacob et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying as moot 6 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Thomas B. Wells and Joseph H. Gale are DISMISSED from this action Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 8/11/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ROBERT L. PERKINS,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
14-cv-388-wmc
JACOB J. LEW, JOHN KOSKINEN,
DEBRA K. HURST, PATRICIA E.
MANES, ROBERT A. BANKS, WILLIAM
A. ROBERTSON, TIMOTHY I.
GUKICK, THOMAS B. WELLS,
JOSEPH H. GALE, KERRY TAYLOR,
and GEROME E. PRIMM,
Defendants.
In this civil action, pro se plaintiff Robert L. Perkins alleges that certain federal
officials, including United States Tax Court judges, violated his due process rights under
the Fifth Amendment in their treatment of tax assessments against him. Perkins did not
seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but rather paid the filing fee in full. Before the
court now is plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add Elizabeth Crewson Paris, a
United States Tax Court Judge, as a defendant. (Dkt. #4.) Because Paris is entitled to
absolute immunity, the court will deny Perkins leave. See Charleston v. Bd. of Trustees of
Univ. of Ill. at Chi., 741 F.3d 769, 777 (7th Cir. 2013) (“District courts have broad
discretion to deny leave to amend where the amendment would be futile.” (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted)). For the same reasons, the court will also dismiss
United States Tax Court Judges Wells and Gale as defendants.1

1

If plaintiff had sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court would have screened
his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before issuing summonses, and would

In his original complaint and in his proposed amended complaint, Perkins
requests monetary relief for deprivation of his rights. (Proposed Am. Compl. (dkt. #5)
¶¶ 119, 120 (seeking $400,000 in damages against all defendants and $950,000 in
punitive damages against Hurst, Gukich, Gale, Primm and Paris).)

However, Judges

Gale, Wells and Perkins enjoy absolute judicial immunity from claims for damages arising
out of their judicial acts.

The doctrine of judicial immunity establishes the absolute

immunity of judges from damages for all actions taken as part of their judicial (as
opposed to executive or administrative) functions, even when they act maliciously or
corruptly.

See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991).

This immunity is not for the

protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public
which has an interest in a judiciary free to exercise its function without fear of
harassment by unsatisfied litigants. Pierson v. Ray, 286 U.S. 547, 554 (1967).
Here, Perkins alleges that these judges made certain errors in their capacity as
judges. (See, e.g., Proposed Am. Compl. (dkt. #5) ¶ 55 (Wells failed to determine that a
petition was filed in the wrong court); ¶¶ 62-69 (Gale determined that while he had
jurisdiction, he did not find a collection act void, found commencement of the levy while
tax liability was under appeal was harmless error, and found plaintiff’s challenges to be
groundless, etc.); ¶¶ 99-118 (Paris found a valid assessment, determined statute of
limitations had not expires, found Perkins had consented to telephonic conference, stated
facts contrary to the record, found Perkins’ challenges irrelevant, moot or meritless,
have at least denied him leave to proceed against Wells and Gale. Defendants also filed a
motion seeking dismissal of Wells and Gale for the same reason. (Dkt. #6.) This order
moots that motion.
2

etc.).) As such, all three judges are entitled to absolute immunity. See Burger v. Gerber,
No. 01-5238, 2001 WL 1606283, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 20, 2001) (affirming district
court’s dismissal of complaint against United States Tax Court judge “because as a judge
he is entitled to absolute immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in
his judicial capacity”).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (dkt. #4) is DENIED;
2) defendants Thomas B. Wells and Joseph H. Gale are DISMISSED from this
action; and
3) defendants Gale and Wells’ motion to dismiss (dkt. #6) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
Entered this 11th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3