HOUSTON -- A Texas appelas court has ruled Susan Morgan Farris, a prosecutor representing the Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline in its disciplinary action against Holly Gail Crampton, is immune from a complaint filed by Crampton against Farris, alleging she intentionally inflicted emotional distress and violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The Texas Court of Appeals for the First District affirmed a lower court’s ruling that granted Farris’ plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissed Crampton’s claims with prejudice. Justice Richard Hightower authored the opinion. Justices Peter Kelly and Julie Countiss concurred.
Crampton said in the appeal that absolute immunity cannot protect Farris against her alleged ultra vires (above her power) acts, but Justice Hightower wrote, “We first observe that absolute prosecutorial immunity protects a prosecutor, even if she acts in bad faith or with ulterior motives, so long as she acts within the scope of her prosecutorial duties.”
Texas First District Court of Appeals Justice Julie Countiss
| facebook.com/JulieCountissforJustice/
Crampton also failed to show that Farris actually committed ultra vires.
The foundation of Crampton’s claims were issues that Crampton took with Farris’s actions in the course of her official duties as the prosecutor of her disciplinary proceeding. But the judges said Farriss behavior was not outside of her role as the lawyer for the commission.
Crampton went on to claim that absolute immunity also doesn’t protect Farris from the 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims.
“Courts have held, however, that absolute prosecutorial immunity bars suits brought under section 1983,” Hightower wrote.
The judges added that protection from a lawsuit is jurisdictional, and can legally be a factor in a plea to the jurisdiction.
The legal matter began after the commission filed a disciplinary action against Crampton. That complaint stemmed from a dispute filed by Crampton’s previous client, Michael Lemont, and was related to Crampton representing him in an insurance lawsuit against the Veteran’s Administration. Before that was completed, Crampton filed her own third party petition against Farris, the commission attorney who was working on the case.
Crampton sued Farris in her individual capacity for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. She alleged that Farris’ “acts of professional misconduct – at best – and acts violating criminal statutes – at worst – as a [commission] prosecutor, demonstrate her belief that as a [commission] prosecutor, she is ‘absolutely immune,’ ‘above the law,’ and that ’the ends justify the means,’” according to the opinion.
The same court that was overseeing the allegations against Crampton, also heard Crampton’s lawsuit against Farris. Because of this, Farris filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing sovereign immunity and absolute immunity under Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.09. The lower court granted the plea and dismissed Crampton’s claims, leading to Crampton’s current appeal.