LARRY E. PARRISH. P.C. v. ANDY D. BENNETT, FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., AND W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JUDGES OF THE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS - Articles

All Content

LARRY E. PARRISH. P.C. v. ANDY D. BENNETT, FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., AND W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JUDGES OF THE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Mar 2, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Larry E. Parrish, PARRISH LAWYERS, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Laura Miller, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Judge(s): McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. In this action, Larry E. Parrish, P.C., a Tennessee law firm (the “Parrish Firm”) sued three judges of the Tennessee Court of Appeals because they allegedly made false statements in a written opinion resolving an appeal to which the Parrish Firm was a party. Plaintiff claims that the false statements were a violation of its Fourteenth Amendment rights, but as a remedy, it seeks no damages or injunctive relief—instead, requesting only a declaration that defendants violated its constitutional rights.

The district court, however, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, reasoning that it was “not a close issue” that it lacked jurisdiction, and that even if it had jurisdiction, dismissal was required by judicial immunity and the relevant statute of limitations. Finally, even ignoring these sizable defects, the district court concluded that the facts pleaded by plaintiff were insufficient to state a claim. Now on appeal, plaintiff primarily challenges the district court’s rulings regarding jurisdiction and judicial immunity. We affirm the judgment of the district court and direct plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be assessed against them on appeal.

Attachments: