MULLANE
v.
ALMON
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.
The court held that the plaintiff's withdrawal of his bar application did not moot the Younger abstention doctrine and that defendants were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for damages claims.
Plaintiff withdrew his bar application after the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending dismissal. Plaintiff objected to the report, arguing th…
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 Live Controversy cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 41, and attachments, as well as the Defendants’ response, ECF No. 44. In a transparent attempt to circumvent Younger abstention, Plaintiff has withdrawn his bar application. ECF No. 41 at 2 (“The Younger abstention issue is now moot; the state-court proceeding was subsequently withdrawn and terminated following the entry of the R&R[.]”); see also ECF No. 40 at 12 (letter notifying Defendants that Plaintiff has withdrawn his application for admission to the Florida Bar). However, this Court does not countenance such gamesmanship. Moreover, it is a losing tactic. Younger abstention still applies in this case, because the state judicial proceedings were ongoing at the date of filing of the federal complaint. See Henry v. Fla. Bar, 701 F. App’x 878, 882 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Liedel v. Juvenile Court of Madison Cty., Ala., 891 F. 2d 1542, 1546 n.6 (11th Cir. 1990). Plus, Plaintiff’s withdrawal of his bar application appears to have mooted his claims for prospective relief as there is no longer a live controversy or ongoing harm that this Court can address through declaratory or injunctive relief. In addition, Plaintiff’s withdrawal of his bar application does nothing to change the Magistrate Judge’s correct conclusion that Defendants are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from Plaintiff’s claims for damages. See Sparks v. Character and Fitness Comm. of Kentucky, 859 F. 2d 428 (6th Cir. 1988); see also Diaz v. Moore, 861 F. Supp. 1041, 1049 (N.D. Fla. 1994).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation, ECF No. 34, is accepted and adopted, over the Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Defendants’ motion to dismiss,
ECF No. 14, is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims for damages are DISMISSED with prejudice because Defendants are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.” The Clerk shall close the file. SO ORDERED on May 10, 2022.
s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Liedel v. The Juv. Court OF Madison Cnty., 891 F.2d 1542 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Sparks v. Character & Fitness Comm. OF Ky., 859 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1988)
- Diaz v. Moore, 861 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Fla. 1994)