Background: FILE — Judge Kenneth King listens to testimony during a case in Detroit, Jan. 23, 2024 (Clarence Tabb Jr./Detroit News via AP, File). Inset: Left: A teen is seen in Detroit Judge Kenneth King’s courtroom (WDIV/YouTube).
The Michigan judge who set off a firestorm after treating a 15-year-old girl who fell asleep during a field trip to his courtroom as an accused criminal says that he isn’t subject to her lawsuit against him.
As Law&Crime previously reported, Detroit 36th District Judge Kenneth King made headlines in August when he spotted the teen sleeping as he spoke to the group of young visitors during a break between cases. King made the girl wear a prison uniform and had her put in handcuffs. The interaction occurred on courtroom cameras, which were streaming online at the time.
The plaintiff’s mother sued on behalf of her child, identified in pleadings only as “ELG,” alleging malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest and incarceration, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, false arrest and false imprisonment. The teen’s mother said that the girl was sleepy that day for two reasons: the family didn’t have a permanent home, and a homicide case being heard in the court triggered a trauma response in the girl and caused her to shut down.
The lawsuit includes a private security company and two unnamed court officers as defendants.
In a motion to dismiss filed on Monday, King said that judicial immunity protects him from the girl’s lawsuit because throughout the interaction, the judge was acting in his official capacity — and the teen was in court to observe exactly that.
“The trip that Plaintiff was on was to visit a sitting judge to watch a session of Court,” the motion to dismiss says. “That Plaintiff alleges that it was the nature of the session that caused her to close her eyes, which caused reprobation by Judge King.”
The defense motion says that the plaintiff cannot, on the one hand, say she fell asleep during official proceedings while also saying that the judge’s response was not part of his official duties.
“It is quite the paradox that Plaintiff can allege that it was the nature of the court session that caused her detachment, and then on the other hand argue that Defendant King was somehow divorced from his official duties and not acting in his official capacity,” the motion to dismiss says.
A sitting judge, the motion says, “has the authority to control the form and function of their courtroom,” but according to the plaintiff, “the Judge would have no ability to direct staff or control the function of the Court without the Court being directly ‘in session,’ which fails to recognize what judicial functions are.”
“Plaintiff seems to think that during a recess where Defendant King took questions from the gallery in between court sessions, while he was still acting as a judge, somehow removes him from his judicial role,” the motion continues. “Plaintiff seems to allege that during a recess period a judge loses all authority over a courtroom and is somehow stripped of his judicial authority.”
The motion calls this position an “interesting analysis” — and is, in fact, “the antithesis of justice.”
Lawyers for the plaintiff filed a response to the dismissal motions, arguing that the specific circumstances removed King from the protection of immunity.
“Plaintiff has pleaded facts that allege that the unlawful arrest and detention were punishment by Defendant King for actions that occurred during a non-judicial proceeding followed by a fake trial,” the opposition motion says. “Consequently, any order of the judge, rather than being prima facie valid, was unlawful.”
According to the plaintiff, the judge’s plan “was to orchestrate his own version of ‘Scared Straight’ that he broadcast to social media. Plaintiff has further alleged that the judge planned a fake trial as evidenced by the fact that there was no case number, there is no court record, there was no case or controversy, that ELG did not engage Judge King in his official capacity, and the judge was personally motivated to teach the minor a lesson when he knew that he lacked the authority to punish the child.”
“Furthermore,” the filing adds, “all material actions occurred when the court was not in session.”
The plaintiff says that while the complaint used the word “order” to describe King’s instructions, it was clear from the context that the plaintiff wasn’t saying the judge was actually giving legal, enforceable orders.
“Plaintiff does not dispute using the word ‘order’ in introductory paragraphs and in reciting the elements of her claims but the term was not used to describe a direct, facially valid order of the court,” the opposition filing says. “Rather, Plaintiff alleged that [the court officers] were willful participants in the show trial and were not acting pursuant to a valid court order when ELG was arrested, handcuffed, and detained; but rather, they acted with actual malice.”
The filing also says that the girl “was not a party to litigation and did not engage the judge or his officers in any judicial capacity.”
“She was a guest at a speaking engagement, where the lecturer happened to be the judge,” the filing adds.
The plaintiff’s motion also says that a full video of the incident is available, but has not been provided.
“[T]he minor was fifteen years old on the date of the occurrence, the minor was naive to the judicial process, and the defendants and/or the 36th District Court have control of all physical evidence,” the filing says. “The physical evidence is believed to include a full YouTube video of the events that has not been produced and has in fact been pulled from the public record.
King was yanked off the bench in August but resumed hearing cases in late September, albeit traffic cases instead of more serious criminal matters.
The motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard before U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson, a Bill Clinton appointee, on Jan. 29.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
