DUMAN
v.
WIGAND
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 district court dismissed a pro se plaintiff's federal lawsuit challenging a state court child custody order against a circuit court judge. The court found the complaint frivolous and failing to state a claim because judicial immunity protected the judge and federal courts lack authority to review state court judgments.
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Judicial immunity protects the judge for judicial acts, and federal courts lack authority to conduct appellate review of state court judgments.
[1] A district court has broad discretion in managing in forma pauperis cases.
[2] Indigence does not create a constitutional right to expend public funds and court time to prosecute an action that is totally without merit.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Indigence does not create a constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and the valuable time of the courts in order to prosecute an action that is totally without merit.”
Establishes that courts have discretion to dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis cases despite plaintiff's indigence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Duman filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and sued Defendant Christopher Wigand, a circuit court judge in Broward County, Florida. T…
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 Dismissal Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (DE [3]) and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (DE [5]) recommending that the case be dismissed. Plaintiff had until August 11, 2025, to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. He did not file objections.
Notwithstanding the lack of objection, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff's Complaint, the Report and Recommendation, and the relevant case law. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is correct, and the case should be dismissed.
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “grants broad discretion to the district courts in the management of in forma pauperis cases.... Indigence does not create a constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and the valuable time of the courts in order to prosecute an action that is totally without merit." Gates v. Miami Police Dept, 2008 WL 4710751, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2008) (citing Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F. 2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984)). Thus, under § 1915(e)(2), a court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action at any time it determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,”
or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i, ii, and iii). A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Bilal v. Driver, 251 F. 3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). A court may dismiss a complaint for frivolity under § 1915(e) when the legal claim is "indisputably meritless, the facts are far-fetched or baseless, or both." Cofield v. Ala. Public Serv. Comm'n, 936 F. 2d 512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991); Sun v. Forrester, 939 F. 2d 924 (11th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff seeks relief that this Court cannot grant. Plaintiff sues Defendant, Christopher Wigand, who is a circuit court judge in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff's Complaint raises issue with a child custody order entered by the state court. Plaintiff's Complaint fails for two reasons. First, the Defendant has judicial immunity for judicial acts. Bolin v. Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000). Second, this Court cannot conduct an appellate review of a state court judgment and, therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff the request he seeks. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore, fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted and must be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (DE [5]) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 12th day of August 2025.
Copy furnished Plaintiff, pro se, via US Mail
RAAG SINGHAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duman v. Wigand, 2008 WL 4710751 (S.D. Fla. 2025)…gement of in forma pauperis cases.... Indigence does not create a constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and the valuable time of the courts in order to prosecute an action that is totally without merit." Gates v. Miami Police Dept, 2008 WL 4710751, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2008) (citing Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984)). Thus, under § 1915(e)(2), a court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action at any time it determines that the action is “frivolous or malic…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989)
- Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Phillips v. Telfair J. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Sir Keenan Kester Cofield v. ALA. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 936 F.2d 512 (11th Cir. 1991)
- SUN v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924 (11th Cir. 1991)
- Duman v. Wigand, 2008 WL 4710751 (S.D. Fla. 2025)