Makere v. Fitzpatrick

• Decision Date: 08 November 2022
• Docket Number: 4:22cv00315/RH/ZCB
• Parties: ELIAS MAKERE, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN FITZPATRICK, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

1

ELIAS MAKERE, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN FITZPATRICK, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:22cv00315/RH/ZCB

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division

November 8, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Zachary C. Bolitho, United States Magistrate Judge.

This is a pro se civil rights case. Plaintiff has sued five federal judges, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, and a state assistant attorney general. Plaintiff claims they engaged in all sorts of misconduct ranging from bribery to forming a racist conspiracy that violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Doc. 9). The case was filed in state court and then removed to the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Florida. (Doc. 1). The Middle District later transferred it here. (Doc. 28). Two of the federal judges and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida have moved to dismiss. (Doc 26). So has the assistant state attorney general. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff has responded in opposition. (Docs. 37, 46). For the reasons below, the motions to dismiss should be granted.

I. Background

This case stems from an earlier lawsuit (Case No. 4:21-CV-96) that Plaintiff filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Judge E. Gary Early of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. (Doc. 9 at 6).

Plaintiff alleged that Judge Early destroyed evidence and committed perjury while presiding over an employment discrimination case. (Id. at 9-10). Defendants in the current lawsuit participated in the adjudication of Plaintiff's case against Judge Early. Five of the defendants are federal judges in the Northern District of Florida. They are: (1) Mark Walker, Chief U.S. District Judge; (2) Allen Winsor, U.S. District Judge; (3) Martin Fitzpatrick, U.S. Magistrate Judge; (4) Michael Frank, U.S. Magistrate Judge; and (5) Hope Cannon, U.S. Magistrate Judge.^[1]The other defendants are the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and Florida Assistant Attorney General Charles J.F. Schreiber, Jr. (Judge Early's attorney in the prior litigation). (Id.).

Plaintiff accuses Defendants Walker, Fitzpatrick, Winsor, Frank, and Cannon^[2]of widespread misconduct, including accepting bribes, lying, manipulating court dockets, and joining an “anti-black pact” aimed at violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Id. at 6, 14, 17, 18, 20). Plaintiff alleges Defendant Schreiber joined the racist “pact” and committed perjury, bribery, fabrication of evidence, and destruction of evidence. (Id. at 30-31, 35). Plaintiff also alleges Defendant U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida has promulgated a local rule that “was driven by invidious discrimination on the bases of race and sex.” (Id. at 32). More specifically, Plaintiff claims the local rule (N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.4(A)(3)) requiring pro se litigants to file documents in paper form was promulgated “to effectuate its self-fulfilling prophesy of abridging the constitutional rights of black people.” (Id. at 22-24, 37-38). Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Id. at 4). He alleges violations of his rights under the First, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 4).

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as over $30,000 in damages. (Id. at 5, 42-48). Plaintiff's amended complaint does not specify whether Defendants are being sued in their individual or official capacities.

II. Discussion

Defendants U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Walker, Fitzpatrick, and Schreiber argue that dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted. (Doc. 26 at 2; Doc. 16 at 2). Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick assert that they are entitled to judicial immunity and that Bivens does not extend to claims made under the First, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 26). Defendant U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida argues that Plaintiff's claims are barred by sovereign immunity and that it is not subject to suit under Bivens. Defendant Schreiber asserts that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages are barred by sovereign immunity, the amended complaint fails to allege a plausible claim for relief, and the lawsuit is barred by Florida's litigation privilege. (Doc. 16).

A. Absolute judicial immunity bars Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick.

As federal judges who were acting in a judicial capacity when they engaged in the alleged conduct, Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. The issue of immunity is ripe for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage. Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1094 (11th Cir. 1996). Judges are absolutely immune from lawsuits challenging actions taken in their judicial capacity, unless they acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority[.]” Id. at 356. Judicial immunity “applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418 n.12 (1976) (internal quotations omitted). That is so because “[a] judge's errors may be corrected on appeal, but he should not have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption.” Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). To determine if a judge was acting in a judicial capacity for immunity purposes, courts consider “(1) whether the act is one normally performed by judges, and (2) whether the complaining party was dealing with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Stevens, 877 F.3d at 1304 (citation omitted).

Federal judges are immune from damages actions, as well as actions seeking injunctive relief. See Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1241-42 (11th Cir. 2000) (affirming decision that applied absolute judicial immunity to a claim for injunctive relief against federal judges); Kapordelis v. Carnes, 482 Fed.Appx. 498, 499 (11th Cir. 2012) (stating that federal judges “retain[] absolute immunity against injunctive relief”). With respect to claims for declaratory relief, there is some uncertainty in Eleventh Circuit caselaw regarding when judicial immunity extends to claims for declaratory relief. On the one hand, there are cases saying “[t]he doctrine of judicial immunity applies to both suits for damages and suits seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.” Bush v. Washington Mut. Bank, 177 Fed.Appx. 16, 17 (11th Cir. 2006); Simmons v. Edmondson, 225 Fed.Appx. 787, 788 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Federal judges [also] are immune to injunctive and declaratory relief.”); Jarallah v. Simmons, 191 Fed.Appx. 918, 920 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining that for federal judges the “doctrine of judicial immunity applies to both suits for damages and suits seeking injunctive and declaratory relief'). On the other hand, there are cases suggesting that declaratory relief may be available against federal judges if a plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., Kapordelis, 482 Fed.Appx. at 499 (11th Cir. 2012); Tarver v. Reynolds, 808 Fed.Appx. 752, 754 (11th Cir. 2020) (stating that to obtain declaratory relief against a judge there must be “an absence of an adequate remedy at law”).

Here, Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick involve actions taken in a judicial capacity. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick entered “unauthorized orders” and improperly enforced Local Rule 5.4. (Doc. 9 at 17-22). Entering orders and enforcing procedural rules are actions that judges normally take. Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick took the challenged actions while presiding over a case that had been brought by Plaintiff against Judge Early. Finally, there is no credible reason to believe Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick were acting in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” See Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-57. Defendants and Walker and Fitzpatrick are, therefore, entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

As mentioned above, there is some uncertainty regarding whether federal judges are absolutely immune from declaratory relief claims. But in this case, Plaintiff's claims fail regardless. The cases holding that judicial immunity does not automatically apply to declaratory relief claims have said declaratory relief is only available if there was no remedy at law. Here, Plaintiff has a remedy at law- namely, the ability to appeal the decisions made by Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick. As a result, Plaintiff cannot maintain declaratory relief claims against Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick in this case.^[3]See Tarver, 808 Fed.Appx. at 754 (rejecting claim for declaratory relief against a judge because the plaintiff had “an adequate remedy at law: appeal through the state-court system”); see also Kapordelis, 482 Fed.Appx. at 499 (stating that plaintiff was not entitled to declaratory relief against federal appellate court judges because plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law, namely he could “pursue Supreme Court review of the challenged decisions”).

Plaintiff appears to argue that judicial immunity does not apply here because creating Local Rules is a legislative function and not a judicial function. (Doc. 46 at 12-13). Even if that is true, Plaintiff is challenging the application of the Local Rules to his case by Defendants Walker and Fitzpatrick. Pla...