Key Points

  • The Eighth Circuit dismissed Judge Eric Eighmy's judicial-immunity appeal because he raised the defense at the motion-to-dismiss and summary-judgment stages but not in his Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law.
  • The panel held that, after a full trial, an appellate court cannot review a summary-judgment denial that turned on disputed facts, citing Ortiz v. Jordan and Dupree v. Younger.
  • The panel held that locking two children in courthouse holding cells for refusing to leave with their mother after a custody hearing was an unreasonable seizure that violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law, so qualified immunity did not apply.
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by resubmitting an inconsistent verdict to the jury, which then awarded $5,000 to each child, or by refusing to reduce the award to $1.
  • The $326,637.22 award of attorney fees and costs stood because lodestar calculations do not require rigid proportionality to the damages.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a jury verdict against a Missouri judge who had two children locked in courthouse holding cells because they refused to leave with their mother after a custody hearing. The court also held that the judge waited too long to argue that judicial immunity barred the case.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed $5,000 in damages for each child and $326,637.22 in attorney fees and costs against Judge Eric Eighmy. Judge Stras wrote for the panel, which included Judges Shepherd and Kelly. "When Judge Eric Eighmy had courthouse officers lock two children in holding cells because they refused to leave with their mother following a custody hearing, he violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights," he wrote.

The panel held that after a full trial it could not review a summary-judgment denial of immunity that turned on disputed facts, because the defendant did not renew the defense in later motions for judgment as a matter of law. It also held that qualified immunity did not protect a judge who jailed children for refusing to leave with a parent.

The children's parents, Bart Rockett and Kami Ballard, divorced in Missouri. At a custody hearing before Judge Eighmy, the parents agreed that Ballard would have primary custody, with Rockett responsible for the children at the beginning of each month and "during TV pilot season."

Both children then refused to leave with their mother. Judge Eighmy took them to a conference room, told them they had no choice and mentioned foster care as the other option. He then led them to the juvenile division, told someone to "[k]eep an eye on" them, and later walked them to two holding cells.

After a second foster-care threat failed, the judge had a juvenile officer "lock them up." The officer patted the children down and ordered them to remove their socks and shoes, and Judge Eighmy stood by as the officer locked the doors. After what "felt like forever," the children nodded yes when the judge again asked whether they would leave with their mother, and he let them go. They spent 20 to 40 minutes in the holding-cell area.

Rockett sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 2023 the Eighth Circuit affirmed, as relevant here, the denial of Judge Eighmy's motion to dismiss on judicial-immunity grounds, reasoning that the children were beyond his contempt power and that "judges do not do double duty as jailers." That panel remanded a separate claim for dismissal on judicial-immunity grounds. The district court, where U.S. District Judge M. Douglas Harpool of the Western District of Missouri presided, rejected the defense again at summary judgment.

At trial, Judge Eighmy switched to qualified immunity. He raised it in motions for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, at the close of evidence and after the verdict. He did not raise judicial immunity in either motion.

"By waiting so long, Judge Eighmy missed his chance," Judge Stras wrote. "Presumably he thought that raising judicial immunity twice previously—once in a motion to dismiss and a second time at summary judgment—was enough to preserve it for appeal. Turns out he was wrong."

Citing the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Ortiz v. Jordan, the panel said Judge Eighmy had abandoned the defense after summary judgment, "thereby depriving the district court of the opportunity to address it first after seeing and hearing all the evidence." The appeals court was therefore "powerless to review" it. The panel also declined to treat the issue as "purely legal," because Judge Eighmy wanted it to decide whether the facts were once "genuinely in dispute."

On qualified immunity, the panel held that the judge seized the children without probable cause. "Rather, their only misdeed was one every parent knows well: resisting authority," Judge Stras wrote. "Even in the context of legal-custody proceedings, refusing to leave with a parent is not a jailable offense."

The panel accepted that Judge Eighmy believed he acted in "good faith," but said good faith under the Fourth Amendment means reasonable reliance on binding precedent or a warrant. "No case allows a judge to detain children in a holding cell when they refuse to leave with a parent," Judge Stras wrote. "And a custody plan is no substitute for a warrant."

The panel found the law clearly established even without a prior case on similar facts, quoting then-Judge Gorsuch's 2015 Tenth Circuit observation that "sometimes the most obviously unlawful things happen so rarely that a case on point is itself an unusual thing."

The panel also upheld the damages. The jury first awarded "none," and Judge Harpool sent it back to "reconsider," telling jurors that even "one dollar" would do. The jury returned $5,000 for each child. "Turns out the answer was neither, which surprised everyone," Judge Stras wrote, referring to the question of whether jurors had meant to find no violation or to award nominal damages.

Resubmitting the verdict and refusing Judge Eighmy's request to cut the award to $1 were within the trial court's discretion, the panel held. He waived any challenge to the instruction itself when his lawyer said, "[w]e're fine with the nominal damage instruction given, your honor."

Judge Harpool calculated fees by multiplying the hours reasonably spent by a reasonable hourly rate, using rates lower than the lawyers proposed, then cut 10% for lower-than-expected damages and unsuccessful claims. "We realize that the final number of $326,637.22 looks large in comparison to the $10,000 the jury awarded in damages," Judge Stras wrote. "But this was a hotly contested case with multiple defenses raised, including two types of immunity."

The Institute for Justice and the National Police Accountability Project appeared as amici supporting the children. The panel dismissed the judicial-immunity portion of the appeal and affirmed the district court's judgments in all other respects, leaving the $10,000 verdict and the fee award in force.