CA4: No absolute immunity for a judge involved in search of ex’s property over their divorce

“We consider in this appeal whether a judge who participates in the search of a litigant’s home is entitled to judicial immunity for actions related to the search. Judge Louise Goldston went to Matthew Gibson’s residence to look for items he had failed to turn over to his ex-wife after their divorce. She entered his home over his objections after threatening him with arrest should he try to stop her. She then supervised the seizure of designated items in the house. The only question before us is whether judicial immunity shields these acts. We hold it does not. Judicial immunity protects only judicial acts. It does not shield the conduct of judges who step outside their judicial role, as Judge Goldston did when searching Gibson’s home.” The judge was also barefoot during part of the search. Gibson v. Goldston, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28744 (4th Cir. Oct. 30, 2023).

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address which is third-party information. United States v. Milligan, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193558 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 27, 2023).*

Plaintiff’s Bivens claim is likely doubtful, but whether Bivens applies doesn’t even have to be decided because the statute of limitations bars the claim. Foster v. Guillou, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28752 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2023).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Neutral and detached magistrate, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.