A judge who signed arrest warrants cannot be sued for that official act.
Angel Gabriel Jiminez Jiminez v. Latonya T Simmons
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
A judge who signed arrest warrants cannot be sued for that official act.
Why it matters
In Jiminez-Jiminez v. Simmons, a federal district court in South Carolina dismissed a pro se civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The plaintiff sued a defendant for signing arrest warrants, but the court found the defendant was acting in a judicial capacity and therefore entitled to judicial immunity. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects people who file civil rights lawsuits against judicial officers for actions those officers take in their official capacity, such as signing warrants. It reinforces that such officers are protected by judicial immunity and generally cannot be held personally liable in federal court for those official acts.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Aug 28, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Aug 28, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Aug 28, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
The plaintiff, Angel Gabriel Jiminez-Jiminez, filed a lawsuit without an attorney under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a federal law that allows people to sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. The sole defendant, Latonya T. Simmons, was sued specifically for signing arrest warrants, which is an action taken in a judicial capacity. A Magistrate Judge reviewed the case and issued a report recommending dismissal before the case even got started, concluding that the defendant was protected by judicial immunity. Judicial immunity is a long-standing legal doctrine that shields judges and certain judicial officers from being sued for actions they take as part of their official judicial duties. The plaintiff was given fourteen days to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's report but did not do so. Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the record only for clear error, a lower standard than a full independent review. Finding no clear error, the court agreed with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and dismissed the case without prejudice and without requiring the defendant to be formally served. A dismissal without prejudice generally means the plaintiff is not permanently barred from raising the issue again, though the facts here, as described in the opinion, center on conduct covered by judicial immunity. There was no dissent noted in this opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Angel Gabriel Jiminez-Jiminez, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 6:26-cv-2598-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Latonya T. Simmons, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Angel Gabriel Jiminez-Jiminez’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On August 4, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this matter without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because the sole named Defendant, who is sued for an action taken in her judicial capacity, i.e., signing arrest warrants, is entitled to judicial immunity. (ECF No. 9.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 9), and the Court dismisses this matter without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge August 28, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina 2
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.