GUBERMAN
v.
JUNG
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages and relief for actions taken in their judicial capacity, even if acting maliciously or in excess of authority, unless acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued a federal district judge for alleged constitutional violations stemming from rulings made in a prior case. The plai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse § 1983 cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Daryl Guberman’s complaint filed on May 26, 2020. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff has filed this pro se § 1983 suit against a United States District Judge based on actions taken by that judge in Paris v. Levinson, No. 8:19-cv-423-T-02SPF. Plaintiff specifically takes issue with several of Judge William F. Jung’s rulings against him, arguing that the actions have resulted in several violations of his constitutional rights. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court more liberally construes the pleadings. See Alba v. Montford, 517 F. 3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2018).
As the Eleventh Circuit explained just nine days ago: “Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’ ” Bolin v. Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Judges are also generally immune from injunctive and declaratory relief unless (1) a declaratory decree was violated or (2) declaratory relief is unavailable. Id. at 1242. “A judge enjoys immunity for judicial acts regardless of whether he made a mistake, acted maliciously, or exceeded his authority.” McCullough v. Finley, 907 F. 3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2018).
McCree v. Griffin, No. 19-14646-A, 2020 WL 2632329, at *1 (11th Cir. May 20, 2020).
Importantly, “judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)).
Considering the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds that Judge Jung is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See, e.g., McCree, 2020 WL 2632329, at 1-2 (holding that judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity from injunctive relief and money damages where plaintiff alleged that judge violated his constitutional rights by arbitrarily denying motion); Bolin, 225 F. 3d at 1239-40 (holding that federal judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from injunctive relief and money damages for acts taken in their judicial capacity unless jurisdiction is clearly absent); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (explaining that judge will not be deprived of immunity even if action was in error, done maliciously, or in excess of his authority, and he is only subject to liability in the clear absence of all jurisdiction). Because Plaintiff’s allegations emanate from actions taken by Judge Jung in his judicial capacity during proceedings over which he had jurisdiction, Judge Jung is absolutely immune from civil liability.1
In this case, amendment would be futile because Judge Jung is entitled to absolute immunity for his role in Plaintiffs proceedings in case no. 8:19-cv-423-T-O02SPF. As such, the complaint is due to be dismissed without leave to amend. See, e.g., McCree, 2020 WL 2632329, at *2. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, without leave to amend. (2) This actionis DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 29th day of May, 2020.
= i 7 i. / O) l “TOMBARBER sits
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 30f3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985)
- Stump v. Sparkman et vir, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978)
- Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Richard & Jane Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108 (11th Cir. 1991)
- Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991)
- McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2018)