United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10628
Conference Calendar
TRACY SHON NIXON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CV-1024-D
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tracy Shon Nixon appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Nixon argues that the
district court prematurely dismissed his claim against Judge
Green based on qualified immunity. Nixon additionally contends
that his claim falls under the Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123
(1908), exception to the State of Texas’ sovereign immunity under
the Eleventh Amendment.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-10628
-2-
“Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from
claims for damages arising out of acts performed in the exercise
of their judicial functions.” Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284
(5th Cir. 1994)(citation omitted). “Judicial immunity can be
overcome only by showing that the actions complained of were
nonjudicial in nature or by showing that the actions were taken
in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. (citations
omitted). Because Nixon does not complain of any actions by
Judge Green that were nonjudicial in nature or taken completely
without jurisdiction, the district court properly dismissed any
claim against her as frivolous based on her judicial immunity.
See id.
“To meet the Ex Parte Young exception, a plaintiff’s suit
alleging a violation of federal law must be brought against
individual persons in their official capacities as agents of the
state, and the relief sought must be declaratory or injunctive in
nature and prospective in effect.” Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of
Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998)(citation
omitted). Although Nixon’s claim is brought against an
individual, Judge Green, as an agent of the state, Nixon is
seeking damages for past actions. Therefore, Nixon’s claim does
not meet the Ex parte Young exception.
Based on the foregoing, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.