A long feud between a former Mississippi Supreme Court justice and a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of the state shows no sign of ending, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit providing the latest development, this one in favor of the ex-judge.
The Circuit ruled that the former U.S. Attorney, Dunn Lampton, does not enjoy immunity from being sued by the ex-judge, Oliver Diaz Jr. In so ruling on Monday, the appellate court upheld the conclusion of a federal district judge, who ruled in Diaz’s favor almost a year ago (see Main Justice’s report.)
Diaz, who had served in the Mississippi House of Representatives as a Republican, was appointed by Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove in 2000 to fill an unexpired term on the state’s high court. He later ran for election and won a full eight-year term on the court. But in 2003 Diaz was indicted on bribery and mail fraud charges in a case prosecuted by Lampton.
Diaz was acquitted in 2005. Soon afterward, he was indicted on tax-evasion charges. He beat those charges also, although his wife, Jennifer, pleaded guilty to tax charges.
Lampton then filed a complaint against Diaz with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, which investigates claims of judicial misconduct. As part of his complaint, Lampton submitted some of the Diaz couple’s tax information, prompting the couple to sue Lampton for invasion of privacy.
Lampton contended he should enjoy immunity because he was fulfilling his duties as prosecutor. The district court rejected that contention, and so did the Circuit Court. In its opinion, it said Lampton was merely a “complaining witness” before the judicial commission, not a prosecutor. Furthermore, the Circuit said, “A prosecutor does not have carte blanche to do as he pleases with the information he can access.”
I sued a state of Colorado prosecutor, Elizabeth Wittemyer, for issuing a statement, after dismissing a criminal charge, that there was a victim and probable cause but that a trial of me would be too expensive. There was no written statement of probable cause and no arraignment but the prosecutor held the charges open for 6 months before dismissing it out of court, in violation of Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. The criminal charges were initiated by a criminal summons and complaint that is supposed to be signed only by a police officer. Instead it was signed by the wife of a convicted drug dealer who has never been a public employee. Her husband was the former president of the Steamboat Springs Colorado city council and the police report indicated that I had complained of zoning and constitutional violations. I quoted the Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons to no avail. The magistrate’s report stated that all prosecutors have absolute immunity. I objected to that but there was no recognition of my objection, which was timely. They just pretended that I hadn’t filed an objection. Former judge Edward Nottingham dismissed my case without a memorandum opinion even though one was required by Rule 52. Nottingham ordered that I must pay the lawyer who represented the prosecutor $22 K. He did not file a rule 11 motion. Nottingham also ruled that I could no longer represent myself in federal court. I tried to pursue a Rule 60(b)(3) motion in a nonrendering court but Nottingham ordered that I should be incarcerated until I filed a motion to dismiss that which I finally did when they threatened to also incarcerate my husband. Then Nottingham ordered that I would be reincarcerated unless I filed a motion to dismiss that he dictated and that I should be incarcerated for filing a notice of appeal.