JOSEPH CARROLL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL A. GROSS, SR., BETTE ELLEN QUIAL, PATRICIA A. SEITZ, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
PER CURIAM: Appellant Joseph Carroll filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various members of the Florida State Bar violated his due process rights.
Adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court dismissed Carroll’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
We affirm.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), district courts have discretion to dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis complaints.
Denton v. Hernandez, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Harris v. Menendez, 817 F. 2d 737, 741 (11th Cir.1987).
At any stage of the proceedings, a case is frivolous for section 1915(d) when it appears the plaintiff “has little or no chance of success.”
Menendez, 817 F. 2d at 740; see Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 463-66 (1972) (dismissing under section 1915(d) after filing of defensive pleadings and affidavits by all parties), aff'd adopting district court opinion, 480 F. 2d 805 (5th Cir.1973). A district court may conclude a case has little or no chance of success and dismiss the complaint before service of process when it determines from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal theories are “indisputably merit-less.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1832, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Denton, — U.S. at ---, 112 S.Ct. at 1733-34.
Even if the complaint otherwise states a claim and the alleged facts are not fantastic, the defendant's absolute immunity justifies dismissal before service of process.
See Clark v. State of Georgia Pardons and Paroles Bd., 915 F. 2d 636, 640 n. 2 (11th Cir.1990).
Carroll argues dismissal was improper because defendants violated his constitutional rights and were entitled to no immunity.
But the district court determined from the complaint that defendants were acting as agents of the Florida Supreme Court.
See Florida Bar Rules 3-3.1, 3-7.3 (West Supp.1992).
As such, defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.
See Slavin v. Curry, 574 F. 2d 1256, 1266 (5th Cir.) (members of state bar grievance committee immune from suit because they acted as arm of state supreme court), modified on other grounds, 583 F. 2d 779 (1978), overruled in part on other grounds by Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., 604 F. 2d 976, 978 (1979) (en banc), aff'd sub nom.
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); see also Ginger v. Circuit Court, 372 F. 2d 621 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 935, 87 S.Ct. 2061, 18 L.Ed.2d 998 (1967); Simons v. Bellinger, 643 F. 2d 774, 782 (D.C.Cir.1980).
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Carroll’s action as frivolous.
AFFIRMED. .
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.19891) ten banc ), we adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided before October 1, 1981. .
Carroll also argues the district court should have allowed him to amend his complaint.
The record does not show that Carroll ever tried to amend his complaint in district court, although the order of dismissal—which does not state that it was with prejudice—left open that possibility.
See Czeremcha v. Int'l Ass’n of Mach. & Aero.
Workers, 724 F. 2d 1552, 1556 (11th Cir.1984).
Also, considering the essence of Carroll's complaint, it seems clear that no amendment could avoid the immunity defense for these state bar agents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (72 total)
-
Henry v. Bank of Am. N.A. (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…were acting as agents of the Florida Supreme Court, they “enjoy[ ] immunity for actions taken during the course of their official duties.” Caffey v. Ala. Supreme Court, 469 Fed. Appx. 748, 752 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 7 Because the judicial immunity doctrine is dispositive, it becomes unnecessary to address the remaining grounds for which the trial court found dismissal warranted. ---PAGE 10--- 1993) (per curiam)). Here, Ms. Henry's allegations…1 / 2
-
Jamaal Ali Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2001)…rd to review § 1915(e)(2) claims based on changes to statute by PLRA). II. A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact. Battle v. Central State Hospital, 898 F. 2d 126, 129 (11th Cir.1990); see also Carroll v. Gross, 984 F. 2d 392, 393 (11th Cir.1993) (“A case is frivolous for section 1915(d) [now section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) ] when it appears the plaintiff ‘has little or no chance of success.’”) (internal citations omitted). Other circuits have recognized that the activation of…
-
Ippolito v. State, 824 F. Supp. 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993)…ir.1976). Thus, Plaintiffs cannot state a § 1983 claim against the Florida Supreme Court. Also, the Florida State Bar and members acting as agents of the Supreme Court are entitled to absolute immunity in a § 1983 action. Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir.1993). Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot state a § 1983 claim against the Florida Bar, the Florida Bar’s Committee Against The Unlawful Practice of Law, the Bar’s president, directors, and committee members. The remaining parties are judges, at…
Previewing 3 of 72 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989)
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1980)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1992)
- Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Sparks v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co., Inc., 604 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Slavin v. Curry, 583 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Clark v. State OF Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Ottis Mayo Jones v. Gertrude Bales, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Czeremcha v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 724 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1984)