Rockett v. Eighmy

Transcript

All right, it's Law Bunker and today we're back in the 8th Circuit on docket number 25-1664, Rockett v. Eighmy. This is a custody case with... some difficult facts. The parents were getting a divorce in Missouri, but they stayed together for a while, so the kids, who were described as aspiring stars, could try and make a run on America's Got Talent in Los Angeles. Eventually, the parents split up, and in time, there was a custody hearing. Primary custody for one of them and some custody time for the other was decided. The custody outcome doesn't really matter.

The hearing ended, and neither tribe wanted to leave with the parent they were supposed to leave with under the agreement. An argument unfolded in the He walked over, introduced himself, and took the children to a conference room, where he told them they had no choice but to leave with that parent. A youth counselor was also there and reinforced the point, saying the children had to listen to the judge, but the kids didn't budge. They were threatened with foster care if they would not go with the parent, and they still did not move.

So the judge took them away again, this time alone, away from their parents, down to the juvenile division, where he told somebody to keep an eye on them for a while and make sure they did not go anywhere. After a bit, he led them down the hallway to two holding cells. that they did not want to leave with and they still refused the judge then had a juvenile officer lock up these two kids he left them alone they stayed there between 20 and 40 minutes according to the opinion It's not long, but that was a detention nonetheless.

Moreover, they were patted down before they were locked up and they were forced to remove their socks and shoes. Eventually, they were released. One of their parents sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which is a civil rights statute. They alleged 4th and 14th Amendment violations of the children's civil rights. The judge tried to claim judicial immunity and a motion to dismiss and he lost. He appealed in the Court of Appeals, held that the children were beyond the contempt of power, and that judges do not do double duty as jailers.

He tried for judicial immunity again at summary judgment, and he lost again. Eventually, the case went all the way to trial. The jury found for the children, awarded $5,000 to each of them, then added on the $326,000. in attorneys fees and costs The judge appealed. The court addresses a few issues in this opinion. Judicial immunity comes up first, but the court skips over that issue as not really preserved on appeal. The court then addresses the issue of qualified immunity. In this case, the court explained that there are two questions: Did the judge violate a constitutional right, and was that right clearly established?

This is generally the framework that applies in a lot of 1983 claims. On the violation, the threshold question is whether there was a seizure of the children, whether they were seized by the judge. A seizure is like an arrest, similar. The court found the question pretty much answered itself. By ordering an officer to lock up the children, the judge objectively manifested an intent to restrain them, and no reasonable person in that situation would have felt free to leave. All the lead up and the context that I described that was also considered important context for the court. the conversation in the conference room, the foster care threats, putting them in the juvenile division, patting them down, taking their socks and shoes away, locking the door.

The court definitely decided there was a seizure. The second inquiry, though, is whether the seizure was a reasonable one. Some seizures are lawful, such as seizures and arrests made pursuant to probable cause. However, the court found that there was no probable cause because the children had not committed an offense. any of funds, much less one justifying putting them in a jail cell. The court noted their only misdeed was one every parent knows well. resisting authority. And the court noted that refusing to leave with a parent is not a jailable offense, citing to specific authority on the issue.

The court also discussed protective seizures and whether this was sort of done for the children's own good, but that kind of thing needs a court order, and without a court order, probable cause, or exigent circumstances, none of them were present here. A custody plan is not the kind of order that could be enforced this way. The court then discussed whether Judge Eighmy may have believed that he was acting in good faith. the court conceded that he may have even thought that he was acting in the children's best interests although the court didn't really seem to believe that.

The court explained that although Judge Eighmy may have believed he was acting in good faith, that's not really the test in this context. Good faith in this context means a reasonable reliance on something like a law or precedent that gives the judge the authority to do what he did. The Court of Appeals said neither a law nor precedent of that kind existed. No case lets a judge detain children in holding cells because they refuse to leave with a parent. And the court pointed to a lot of precedent for this issue. The court also said that the right was clearly established.

There's a good note in here on that issue. Sometimes it's argued that for an act to be barred, it must be clearly established by a case that is directly on point. however the quote court pointed to a quote from then Judge Gorsuch who said that sometimes the most obviously unlawful things happen so rarely that a case on point is itself an unusual thing. This sort of indicates the court's skepticism with Judge Eighmy's attempt to justify his behavior or claim that he was not violating a clearly established right. There are a couple more issues in this order.

There was a very large fee awarded, much larger than the damages awarded to the children. This is not necessarily unusual in a 1983 case that goes to trial. such cases allow for prevailing paint plaintiffs to collect their attorneys fees and their lines a precedent that indicate that the vindication of rights may cost more than the monetary compensation which sometime sometimes indicate. And so few wards like this are sometimes allowed to stand, as this one did here. Turns out Judge Eighmy's defense ended up being ultimately futile and quite expensive for him. Thanks for listening to The Law Bunker. I look forward to hearing your questions.