JEFFREY JEROME WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Individual legislators are not proper parties to an action seeking a declaration of rights under a statute, and they are immune from civil suits for legislative acts.
A prison inmate sued legislators for declaratory relief regarding Department of Corrections operations. The trial court granted the legislators' motio…
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 Proper Party Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Walker, a prison inmate, filed an action for declaratory relief regarding certain operations of the Department of Corrections. Walker named as defendants the President of the Florida Senate, the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and other legislators. These legislators were apparently served and responded with a motion to drop themselves from the case as improperly joined parties. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the defendant legislators from the lawsuit.
Walker appeals claiming the defendant legislators are indispensable parties in determining his legal rights under the Florida Statutes. We affirm.
As the trial court explained, when a plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of a rule of law, it is the state official designated to enforce that rule who is the proper defendant, even when that party has made no attempt to enforce the rule. Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986); American Civil Liberties Union v. The Florida Bar, 999 F. 2d 1486 (11th Cir.1993). Individual legislators are not themselves proper parties to an action seeking a declaration of rights under a particular statute. Indeed, state legislators are immune from civil suits for their acts done within the sphere of legislative activity. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951). See also United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 100 S.Ct. 1185, 63 L.Ed.2d 454 (1980).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. Francati, 214 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…were not proper parties to an action challenging a statute that preempted county and municipal regulation of firearms and ammunition because the legislators were not designated as the enforcement authority); Walker v. [*746] President of the Senate, 658 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding that the Senate President and Speaker of the House were not proper parties to a declaratory-action challenging certain operations of the Department of Corrections). If the named official is not the enforcing authority, t…
-
Honorable Jeff Atwater v. City OF Weston, 64 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…te. See ACLU v. The Florida Bar, 999 F. 2d 1486, 1490-91 (11th Cir.1993) (citing Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986); Harris v. Bush, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1276 (N.D.Fla.2000); Walker v. President of the Senate, 658 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)). Individual legislators are not proper parties to such a suit. See Walker (affirming order dismissing Senate President and House Speaker from declaratory action challenging certain operations of the Department of Correctio…
-
Nicole "Nikki" Fried v. State of Fla. & City of Weston, 316 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 2023)…ould have the power to frustrate the ability of the Legislature to set policies for the state.”). While “state legislators are immune from civil suits for their acts done within the sphere of legislative activity,” Walker v. President of the Senate, 658 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), as the First District held below, “legislative immunity does not shield individuals who knowingly and willfully act contrary to or beyond the limits of state law” that provides for statutory penalties against government of…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1951)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1986)
- United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1980)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union & Larry Schack v. THE Fla. BAR & The Fla. Jud. Qualifications Comm'n, 999 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1993)