Donna Crooks and Brenda Holmes v. Honorable John H. Maynard

Good Law
851 F.2d 1562·1988 WL 76138·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9954
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 26, 198886-3629California1,093 words

Opinion

Opinion

The plaintiffs, Donna Crooks and Brenda Holmes, brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions against Idaho District Judge John H. Maynard. The plaintiffs claimed that Judge Maynard denied their constitutional rights to procedural due process by jailing them pursuant to a contempt order. The district court, upon the filing of a stipulation of undisputed facts, found that Judge Maynard was immune from liability and we agreed. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to us “for further consideration in light of Forrester v. White,” 484 U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 538 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988).

We have reconsidered our prior judgment and hold that to apply Forrester v. White, supra, properly we must remand this case to the district court.

I

Our earlier disposition of this case, appearing at 820 F.2d 329 (9th Cir.1987), set forth the facts sufficiently to enable us to address immediately the possibility that Judge Maynard continues to be sheltered by absolute immunity notwithstanding For-rester v. White, supra.

It is by no means clear to us that Judge Maynard lacked jurisdiction to invoke the powers of contempt as he did. The Supreme Court of Idaho held…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.