govinfo:USCOURTS-idd-1_26-cv-00308-0

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO 
 
ERIC McENTARFER, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
ROSEMARY EMORY, JENNIFER 
BERGIN, BENJAMIN HARMER, 
PATRICIA MIGLIURI, 
 
Defendants. 
 
 

 
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY 
SCREENING JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Eric McEntarfer filed a pro se prisoner Complaint that is subject to 
screening. The Court is require d to screen all pro se prisone r and pauper complaints to 
determine whether they have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 
1915 & 1915A. The Court must dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, that fail 
to state a claim upon which relief may be gran ted, or that seek monetary relief from a 
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s filings, the Court issues the following Order dismissing 
this case with prejudice for monetary dama ges on absolute judicial immunity grounds. 
“With prejudice” means that Plaintiff cannot bring these claims again. 
REVIEW OF COMPLAINT 
1. Background 
 Plaintiff names Twin Falls County C ourt district and magistrate judges as 

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2 
Defendants. He asserts that they violated his civil rights by allowing him to be criminally 
prosecuted for violation of a civil protection order issued in a different county and by 
setting a $250,000 bond in the criminal case. Petitioner states that he is proceeding pro se 
in the state criminal matter, and the judges refuse to give him any legal help. In this action, 
he seeks monetary damages. Dkt. 3 at 2. 
2. Judicial Immunity 
 Under the doctrine of absolute judicial i mmunity, a judge is not liable for monetary 
damages for acts performed in the exercise of judicial functions. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 
U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978).1 Absolute immunity for judicial officers “is justified and defined 
by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches.” Forrester v. 
White, 484 U.S. 219, 227 (1988). Therefore, to de termine whether an act is judicial in 
nature so that absolute immunity would apply, a court looks to “the nature of the act itself, 
i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the 
parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Sparkman, 435 U.S. 
at 362. 
Idaho district court judges have original jurisdiction over all cases and proceedings 
in Idaho. I. C. § 1-705. Magistrate judges have jurisdiction to hear criminal misdemeanor 
and quasi-criminal actions. I.C . § 1-2208. By statute, stat e magistrate judges may be 
assigned to preside over “[p]roceedings for the preliminary examin ation to determine 
 
1 Judicial officers are also entitled to absolute i mmunity from claims for injunctive relief “unless a 
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In other words, if 
declaratory relief in an action is available, absolute judicial immunity bars any claims for injunctive relief 
in that action. Kampfer v. Scullin, 989 F. Supp. 194, 201 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). 

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3 
probable cause, commitment prio r to trial or the release on bail of persons charged with 
criminal offenses.” I.C. § 1-2208(3)(d). 
 In state criminal Case No. CR45-25- 11574, nothing on the docket shows that 
Plaintiff is being prosecuted un der a nonexistent statute or in valid legal principle. Idaho 
Code § 39-6312 provides that violating a protection order is a misdemeanor crime. Thomas 
D. Kershaw Jr. (not a defendant here) is th e presiding judge. Defendant Judge Benjamin 
D. Harmer conducted the arraignment. In Case CR42-25-11574, Plaintiff is proceeding pro 
se. See https://preview.icourt.idaho.gov/ca se/CR42-25-11574/county/Twin%20Falls 
(accessed 6/5/2026). 
 In state criminal Case No . CR42-26-0828, Plaintiff is being prosecuted under Idaho 
Code § 18-7905 & 18-7906, which provide that first degree stalking is a felony crime. Twin 
Falls County District Judge R. William Hancock presides over the felony case, CR42-26-
0828 (not a defendant here). Defendant Judge Rosemary Emory presided over the motion 
for bond reduction in this criminal case. De fendant Judge Jennifer Bergin was to preside 
over an earlier motion for bond reduction, but that hearing was cancelled. Defendant 
Magistrate Judge Patricia Mig liuri presided over the prelimin ary hearing. Plaintiff is not 
proceeding pro se in Case No. CR42-26-0828. He requested that his attorney be withdrawn, 
but changed his mind. See https://preview.icourt.idaho.gov/case/CR42-26-
0828/county/Twin%20Falls (accessed 6/5/2026). 
 Plaintiff’s Complaint assert s actions that are clearly j udicial functions over which 
these judges have jurisdiction: presiding ov er criminal matters, setting bond and bail 
conditions, and determining whether a defenda nt will proceed with counsel or pro se. 

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4 
 
 
Therefore, the claims for monetary damage s are subject to judicial immunity, and 
amendment would be futile. 
ORDER 
IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint for monetary damages is DISMISSED with 
prejudice on judicial immunity grounds. 
 
DATED: June 16, 2026 
 
 
 _________________________ 
 David C. Nye 
 U.S. District Court Judge 
 

Passage view · GavelSight