Stanley v. Patterson et al.

Facts

In Stanley v. Patterson et al., the appellant appealed a directed verdict in favor of court administrator and municipal court case managers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict. The appellant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari which the state Supreme Court granted. The state Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court.

The appellant was originally arrested for a DUI in December 2013. He pleaded guilty to lesser charges in Atlanta Municipal Court in July 2014. The court sentenced him, and the judge rescinded the bind-over order that would have led to the appellant’s prosecution in state court.

However, the municipal court case managers failed to remove the order from the stack of bind-over orders. One case manager emailed the office to try and stop the file from being forwarded, but they never did so. It was forwarded to the Fulton State court solicitor-general for prosecution.

The appellant was unaware that this occurred. He failed to appear for an arraignment hearing, and the court issued a bench warrant in March 2016. Two months later, in May 2016, a police officer arrested the appellant during a routine traffic stop.

After the appellant’s release, the state court granted the solicitor-general’s request to enter an order of nolle prosequi or no prosecution. Later, the appellant filed a lawsuit against the Atlanta Municipal Court alleging negligence and false arrest. The case proceeded to trial.

After the appellant presented his case, the Appellees moved for a directed verdict claiming they were protected under quasi-judicial and official immunity. The trial court granted that motion on quasi-judicial immunity but did not consider official immunity.

Issues and Holdings

The issues in this case were:

1. Did quasi-judicial immunity protect case managers and municipal court office staff?
2. Did official immunity protect case managers and municipal court office staff?

The court ruled:

1. No.
2. Remanded for further proceedings in the trial court

Reasoning

Quasi-Judicial Immunity

Quasi-judicial immunity may apply when a party other than a judge exercises a judicial function. Officials who can fall under this category may include boards, tribunals, and other people with official decision-making authority. “Quasi” refers to the identity of the decision-maker, not the type of immunity granted.

But even quasi-judicial immunity only applies to judicial functions. These functions are generally defined as “function[s] normally performed by a judge.” But the case prefers a more specific definition: functions that involve resolving disputes between parties who invoked court jurisdiction to do so. Stanley v. Patterson, 314 Ga. 582, 584 (2022).

Ministerial, administrative, or routine tasks do not fall under this type of immunity. Since removing the order from the case stack was not a discretionary decision, it is not a judicial function. So, it does not fall under quasi-judicial immunity. Id. at 585.

Official Immunity

Official immunity distinguishes between ministerial and discretionary acts. A public officer or employee can face personal liability for negligent ministerial acts. They could not face liability for discretionary acts unless the act was willful, wanton, or outside the scope of their authority. Id. at 586.

The trial court did not determine official immunity, so the Georgia Supreme Court remanded this issue back to them.

However, it offered guidance on the difference between ministerial and discretionary acts. Ministerial acts arise from a specific duty and whether the employee or officer executed it correctly. Discretionary acts require “personal deliberation and judgment” and failure to act as directed. Id. at 586.

Conclusion

Stanley v. Patterson is an important case to know for lawyers who handle false arrest claims. It establishes that government officials are not automatically insulated from liability simply because they work for the court.

To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, please reach out here.

Citation: Stanley v. Patterson et al., 878 S.E.2d 529 (S. Ct. GA. Sep. 20, 2022)