T. Matthew Phillips had sought to sue a judge in her personal capacity in federal court. Instead, he may end up having to show cause why he is not a “vexatious litigant.”
Phillips’ attempt to sue Nevada state court judge Mari D. Parlade met with an ignominious fate on August 12, 2026, as his complaint was dismissed with prejudice by U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Phillips, who is licensed to practice law in California but represented himself pro se in the District of Nevada, argued that Judge Parlade’s alleged use of artificial intelligence (AI) on motions he filed in a Nevada family court case was an illegal delegation of judicial decision-making, which he claimed violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair tribunal.
Judge Navarro’s ruling adopted in part Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe’s R&R, holding that Judge Parlade’s decision on the motions was indeed a judicial act performed in her official capacity and thus covered by judicial immunity. The narrow judicial ruling did not address whether Judge Parlade’s alleged use of AI for decision-making duties actually occurred.
Gavel? Check. Robes? Check. Civil Liability Immunity? Check.
Judicial immunity ensures that litigants unsatisfied with a ruling take their next step through an appeal or a writ, rather than suing the judge. This broad application covers judges even if it’s determined that they acted in error, maliciously, or in excess of their authority.
An exception applies if the conduct in question is not judicial in nature or is committed in a clear absence of jurisdiction. The following elements are examined to determine if an act was judicial in nature:
- It was a recognized and normal judicial function
- It occurred in the judge’s chambers
- The issues raised pertain to a case before the judge
- The judge was in their official capacity during any related events, issues, or disputes
It’s extremely rare for the veil of judicial immunity to be pierced. This has been upheld in decisions like Stump v. Sparkman and presented Phillips with a difficult legal barrier he ultimately could not overcome.
AI for Thee but Not for Me?
The case began in a Nevada family law court, with Judge Parlade presiding over Phillips’ divorce proceedings in August 2023. On August 15, Phillips was informed that Judge Parlade had consolidated five of his family court motions into a single document and denied them, judging them “frivolous” because they didn’t meet the Eighth District Local Rules requirement of including “MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES” on all motions.
According to Phillips, his motions included the required phrase, but not in all capital letters. Phillips cited this as proof that Judge Parlade relied entirely on AI to review the documents, which failed to note his slightly different version of the requirement. He also accused her of not reviewing the results herself, claiming she would have seen that he’d met the requirement if she had.
Phillips argued that since Parlade had allegedly removed herself from the entire decision-making process, she hadn’t performed a judicial act. As such, this removed judicial immunity protections from Stump v. Sparkman because she didn’t make the decision herself and had, in fact, committed fraud upon the court.
Whether or not Judge Parlade was using AI as a full proxy for a normal judicial function, the case was always going to be a long shot. Judge Navarro declined to reach concerns under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, agreeing with the R&R that Judge Parlade’s ruling was a judicial act and covered under judicial immunity. The R&R also recommended issuing a vexatious litigant order for Phillips regarding state court proceedings.
Despite Phillips’ best efforts, the courts didn’t directly address whether Parlade’s alleged use of AI to fully make a decision actually occurred. Given the growing impatience judges show toward attorneys who misuse AI in their filings, it raises the question of whether those who sit on the bench should have similar guidelines.
