Opinion
Case No. 04-21000-CIV-MORENO.
July 6, 2004
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Deborah J. Neveils, Asst. Attorney General Office of the Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division, West Palm Beach, FL.
Montgomery Blair Sibley, Pro Se, Rockville, MD.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 7), filed on June 3, 2004.
THE COURT has considered the complaint, the motion, the response, the reply and pertinent portions of the record and, as such, is fully advised on the premises. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff, an attorney certified to practice in Florida, has filed this lawsuit pro se, alleging that the Defendant, Judge Wilson, who presides over the Plaintiff's divorce proceedings in the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, violated his constitutional rights of access to the courts, due process, equal protection, rights under the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, and his rights under the Florida Constitution. The Plaintiff's divorce case from ex-wife Barbara Sibley, under case number 1994-18177-FC-04, in the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida has been ongoing since 1994. The case appears to have been bitter, as evidenced by Plaintiff's numerous filings of separate actions related to issues in the divorce proceeding, including:
1. Sibley v. Judge Maxine Cohen Lando
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 01-2940-CIV-UNGARO-BENAGES Summary: allegations of constitutional violations by judge Outcome: dismissed on basis of Younger abstention
2. Sibley v. Judges David Gersten, Juan Ramirez, and Joseph Nesbitt
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 00-3665-CIV-MORENO Summary: allegations of constitutional violations by judges Outcome: dismissed on basis of judicial immunity, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
3. Sibley v. Mark Martinez
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 02-22931-CIV-HIGHSMITH Summary: allegations of constitutional violations by Clerk's filing process Outcome: dismissed for lack of constitutional violation
4. Sibley v. Judges Alan Schwartz, David Gersten, Mario Goderich, Gerald Cope, Robert Shevin, Maxine Cohen Lando, Victoria Platzer, and Barbara Sibley
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 01-2746-CIV-KING Summary: allegations of constitutional violations by judges Outcome: dismissed on basis of Younger abstention, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rule 11 sanctions imposed against Plaintiff
5. Sibley v. Sibley
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 01-2770-CIV-HUCK Summary: allegations of interference with parent-child relationship by ex-wife Outcome: dismissed on basis of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
6. Sibley v. Sibley
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 01-1349-CIV-GOLD Summary: removal of divorce action from Judge Lando's court Outcome: remanded on basis of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
7. Sibley v. Spears
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 02-22106-CIV-JORDAN Summary: petition for habeas corpus regarding contempt orders Outcome: dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
8. Sibley v. Judge Maxine Cohen Lando
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 03-20942-CIV-HUCK Summary: allegations of violations of right of access to the courts Outcome: dismissed on basis of Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstentions
9. Sibley v. Florida Supreme Court, Harry Lee Anstead, Third District Court of Appeal, and Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Dade County
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 03-21199-CIV-LENARD Summary: allegations of equal protection violations in decisions by Florida courts Outcome: dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
10. Sibley v. Maxine Cohen Lando
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 03-21885-CIV-HUCK Summary: allegations of equal protection violations in divorce proceedings Outcome: dismissed on basis of Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstentions
The Plaintiff has also filed a lawsuit against his wife in federal court in Delaware which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Case No. 8:00-cv-02997-JFM), and has filed a number of appeals and/or petitions before Florida state courts as well.
After considering argument from counsel for both sides, including testimony of the Plaintiff, the Defendant ordered that "[Plaintiff] is henceforth prohibited and enjoined from litigating any matter in state court, including appellate courts, without prior permission from this Court." (Pl.'s Am. Compl. p. 2). The Defendant directed the Plaintiff to seek leave of the Court to litigate other matters by establishing a prima facie basis in writing for either trial or appellate level litigation. (Pl.'s Am. Compl. p. 2). On March 24, 2004, the Defendant reduced the order to writing. (Pl.'s Am. Compl. p. 2).
The Plaintiff claims this order violates his first amendment right of access to the courts, his due process rights, his equal protection rights, his rights under the Article IV Privileges and Immunities clause, and his rights under the analagous Florida Constitutional Provisions. (Pl.'s Am. Compl. p. 4). In his first claim for declaratory relief, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendant's order violates his rights and enforcement of this "declaratory decree," as well as costs and attorneys fees. (Pl.'s Am. Compl. p. 4). In Plaintiff's second claim, he seeks damages in the amount of $1,000,000 from the Defendant for various violations of state and federal law. (Pl.'s Am. Compl. p. 6).
The Defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint on the following grounds:
I. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for violation of his federal constitutional rights.
II. Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for violations of the Florida Constitution or any Florida statutory law.
III. Defendant has judicial immunity from the instant action.
IV. Defendant claims Eleventh Amendment immunity from the instant action.
V. Defendant claims qualified immunity from the instant action.
VI. Defendant claims sovereign immunity pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.28(9)(a).
VII. This Court should abstain from determining this matter due to Younger abstention.
VIII. Plaintiff has not satisfied the elements of injunctive relief.
Standard on Motion to Dismiss
To warrant dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it must be "clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hishon v. King Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). Determining the propriety of granting a motion to dismiss requires a court to accept all the factual allegations in the complaint as true and to evaluate all inferences derived from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Hummings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1994).Analysis
I. Plaintiff's Claim for Monetary Damages
It is well settled law that judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial discretion. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978); see accord Simmons v. Conger, 86 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 1996). A judge will be acting within his judicial discretion if the act complained of is a judicial act and the judge has subject matter jurisdiction at the time he acted. Id. at 356-60. This absolute immunity is intended to permit judges to act independently and without fear of the consequences. Id. at 355. Furthermore, judicial immunity will protect judges even if the action taken was in error, done maliciously or in excess of his authority. Id. As such, the Plaintiff is barred from seeking monetary damages from the Defendant in the instant action.
II. Plaintiff's Claim for Declaratory Relief
In the past, Plaintiffs were permitted to seek prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against judges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-542 (1984). However, in 1996 Congress passed the Federal Courts Improvement Act ("FCIA") which amended § 1983 to state that ". . . in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken ins such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The effect of the FCIA was to legislatively reverse Pulliam and limit the injunctive relief available against judicial officers. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000). As the Defendant did not violate a declaratory decree, judicial immunity applies to the instant action.
Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 is an enabling act which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. et. al., 515 U.S. 277, 282 (1995). Consistent with the nonobligatory nature of the remedy, a district court is authorized, in the sound exercise of its discretion, to stay or to dismiss an action seeking declaratory judgment. Fed. Reserve Bank v. Thomas, 220 F.3d 1235, 1247 (11th Cir. 2000) ( quoting Wilton, 515 U.S. at 288). In the instant case, the Defendant acted within his discretion and authority in issuing the March 24, 2004 order as it the court's recognized right and duty, in both Federal and Florida state courts, to protect their jurisdiction from vexatious litigants and abuse of the judicial system. See Procup v. Strickland, et al., 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1086); Rivera v. State of Florida, 728 So. 2d 1165, 1165 (Fla. 1998). As such, the Court chooses to exercise its discretionary power and abstain from allowing the Plaintiff's declaratory judgment action from proceeding.
Conclusion
In reviewing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 4), filed on May 24, 2004, it is clear that the Defendant was acting within his judicial discretion when he issued the March 24, 2004 order necessitating Plaintiff to obtain the Defendant's permission prior to litigating an action in state court. As such, Defendant is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that because this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction this action is hereby DISMISSED. It is also
ADJUDGED that all pending motions in this case are DENIED as moot with leave to refile if appropriate.
DONE AND ORDERED.