A lawsuit accusing a Detroit judge of gross misconduct when he had a teen girl who fell asleep in his court detained, subjected to a mock trial and threatened with jail may proceed, according to a recent ruling from a federal appeals court.
A panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati denied 36th District Court Judge Kenneth King's request to dismiss the civil lawsuit filed by the girl and her mother, suggesting there was enough evidence at this stage of proceedings to suggest King's actions were not protected by judicial immunity.
The ruling isn't a final decision in the case, but rather allows the original lawsuit to move forward.
Judicial immunity is a broad safeguard for judges, preventing most
forms of legal pushback against actions taken by a judge in an official capacity. But the Aug. 21 ruling noted there are some limits to this power.
"Not all actions taken by a judge in his courtroom are protected by judicial immunity," reads the opinion, written by U.S. Circuit Court Judge Ronald Lee Gilman.
"All reasonable jurists would presumably agree, for example, that a judge cannot shield himself from suit if he draws a firearm and shoots an observer who has dozed off in his courtroom. Or if he sexually assaults a litigant. A line must therefore be drawn between the actions that a judge can take in his courtroom under the cloak of judicial immunity and those that he cannot."
James Harrington, a lawyer with Fieger Law representing the girl, Eva Goodman, and her mother, Latoreya Till, said he was not surprised by the ruling.
"This was a judge exercising a function that judges don't do. It was directly meant to embarrass and scare. ... he was rogue. He was acting outside of the bounds," Harrington said.
The case can now proceed to discovery, the process of collecting additional evidence up to and including Harrington requiring King to sit for a deposition.
Asked if the decision could spur settlement talks, Harrington said King's lawyer has his phone number. But he's preparing for trial, he thinks could happen in early 2027.
"Civil rights are extremely important. They're an extremely important function to maintaining order in our society. If they do want to resolve, it's not going to be cheap. Civil rights are far too important," he said.
In theory, King could appeal the appellate court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Todd Perkins, a Detroit lawyer representing King, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In August 2024, the girl joined other kids participating in a summer program on a field trip to 36th District Court. After watching a hearing in King's court, the kids remained in the gallery while King spoke to them. At some point, the girl nodded off; her mother later told the Free Press her daughter was tired because at the time they were without a permanent place to live and the family did not find a place to sleep until late the night before.
Goodman was initially reprimanded, but when it happened again, King had a bailiff remove her from the room.
She was handcuffed, forced into jail garb and required to remain in a room typically reserved for people accused of committing a crime. King eventually brought her back into the court, where he had a criminal defense lawyer represent her in a faux hearing. King admonished her repeatedly before asking the other teens participating in her program to raise their hands if they thought she should go to jail. While some did raise their hands, King let her go.
Much of the encounter was captured on the judge's YouTube livestream; King regularly streamed all of his proceedings online, where he garnered a relatively robust and fervent audience.
That week, King told the Free Press he acted appropriately.
"I wasn't trying to punish the young lady. What I was trying to do was, I was trying to serve as a deterrence," King said in a 2024 phone interview.
Goodman's lawyers and the federal appellate court seized on this "scared straight" approach, noting this falls well beyond the official duties of the court. Despite King arguing his actions were official, the appeals court also noted there is no case number, file or other standard documents associated with standard judicial proceedings.
"This matters because the existence of a court record or order indicates that a judge’s actions constituted judicial acts," the ruling states.
"The absence of such an order or record here therefore suggests the opposite − that Judge King’s actions were nonjudicial."
There is little public recourse when a judge is accused of wrongdoing. At the time, 36th District Chief Judge William McConico temporarily removed King from the bench and required training. When he returned, he was shifted from hearing the early stages of high-profile felony cases to traffic court.
But in November 2025, the state's Judicial Tenure Commission − the only oversight authority for Michigan judges − took the rare step to publicly confirm an investigation into King's actions involving Goodman. They accused King of violating multiple judicial canons and rules, including failing to treat Goodman with respect.
King is fighting the case, which could result in additional punishment up to and including ouster from his role by the Michigan Supreme Court.
That case is pending, with a public hearing set for September.
Dave Boucher is an investigative reporter with the Detroit Free Press. Reach him at dboucher@freepress.com.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Detroit judge loses appeal in lawsuit filed by detained sleepy teen
