1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN PURPOSE: An example of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and judicial immunity.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN CAUSE OF ACTION: Tort action under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN FACTS: The mother of a “somewhat retarded” daughter petitioned Judge Stump for an order permitting the daughter to be sterilized. Judge Stump met with the mother in chambers, wrote and signed the order. The sterilization procedure was performed, the daughter was told that her appendix was being removed. When the daughter married two years later, she learned the truth and sued Judge Stump under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The U.S. District Court held the judge enjoyed immunity, the Court of Appeals reversed.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN ISSUE: Whether the judge is protected by judicial immunity.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN HOLDING: Yes, U.S. Supreme Court held the judge had immunity from suit.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN REASONING: The Court followed Bradley v. Fisher, which held that “judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Later this was applied to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).

8. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN DISSENT: Neither the circumstances of the decision nor the law of Indiana suggest that Judge Stump’s act was a judicial one. Judicial immunity only applies to judicial acts.