Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00080/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00080-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HARRY L. MCCALL, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-80-WKW

 ) [WO]

JOHNNY HARDWICK, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

On February 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (Doc. 

# 7) that this case be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On March 14, 2016, Plaintiffs timely filed an Objection (Doc. # 

8) to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The same day, Plaintiffs also 

filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Stay Proceeding on 

Recommendation. (Doc. # 9.)

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for several reasons. First, 

because Plaintiffs’ federal claims are inextricably intertwined with a previous state 

court judgment,1this court is without jurisdiction to hear the instant action. See

 

1 Federal claims are inextricably intertwined with state claims where (1) the success of the 

federal claim would effectively nullify the state court judgment, or (2) the federal claim can 

succeed only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues. Casale v. Tillman, 558 

F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiffs seek a stay of the state court order on grounds 

of perceived judicial bias against them in the state court proceedings, success in the instant federal 

action would effectively nullify the state court’s judgment. 

Case 2:16-cv-00080-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing D.C. Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), and Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 

U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923). Second, because Defendant Mortgage Depot is not a state 

actor, it cannot be liable under § 1983, which forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims. 

See Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1130–32 (11th Cir. 1992). Third, to the extent 

Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages against Defendant Hardwick, the claims 

are barred by absolute judicial immunity. See, e.g., Jarallah v. Simmons, 191 F. 

App’x 918, 920 (11th Cir. 2006). Fourth, to the extent Plaintiffs seek injunctive 

relief against Defendant Hardwick, they have not alleged any facts supporting the 

conclusion that Hardwick violated a declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was 

unavailable to them. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Fifth, the allegations regarding 

Hardwick’s purported bias during the state court proceedings are conclusory, and 

thus insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009).

The Recommendation contemplated the possibility of allowing Plaintiffs to 

amend their complaint. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that, because the requested 

relief ultimately would result in nullification of an earlier state court judgment, such 

an amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs also availed themselves of an opportunity 

to address the deficiencies in their complaint when they filed objections to the 

Recommendation. Upon an independent review of the complaint, the 

Recommendation, the objections, and the motion for leave to amend the complaint, 

Case 2:16-cv-00080-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Plaintiffs’ objections are due to be overruled, the Recommendation is due to be 

adopted, and the motion for leave to amend the complaint is due to be denied.

Plaintiffs’ objections to the Recommendation will be overruled. Relying on 

the fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Plaintiffs contend that the court 

has jurisdiction to hear this action. See In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186, 

189 (6th Cir. 1986). The Eleventh Circuit has refused, however, to adopt this fraud 

exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Velasquez v. S. Fla. Fed. Credit 

Union, 546 F. App’x 854, 859 (11th Cir. 2013); Scott v. Frankel, 606 F. App’x 529, 

532 n.4 (11th Cir. 2015). 

Even if the Eleventh Circuit had recognized this exception, Plaintiffs’ 

allegations are insufficient to support its application in this context. Plaintiffs 

contend that the court reporter was unable to produce the transcript from a hearing 

regarding the state court action. The court reporter later informed Plaintiffs that she 

was unable to produce a transcript from that hearing because no hearing in fact took 

place on the date in question. (See Doc. # 8-1, at 1–2.) Plaintiffs further contend 

that Judge Hardwick was rude during a hearing. These allegations are insufficient 

to support the reasonable inference that the state court judgment was procured 

through fraud.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint will be denied. Though a 

pro se litigant should be given at least one opportunity to amend his complaint, the 

court need not allow an amendment where doing so would be futile. Cornelius v. 

Case 2:16-cv-00080-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Bank of Am., N.A., 585 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs were afforded an 

opportunity to file objections to the Recommendation. They were also afforded an 

opportunity to explain, in their motion for leave to amend the complaint, how justice 

requires an amendment. Neither the Objection (Doc. # 8) nor the motion for leave 

to amend (Doc. # 9) indicates that the complaint seeks anything other than a review 

of a previous state court judgment that is inextricably intertwined with the claims 

presented here. As noted in the Recommendation, allowing an amendment would 

be futile because the claims asserted in this action are barred under Rooker-Feldman. 

Even a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a claim for relief because

Plaintiffs ultimately seek federal review and rejection of a final state court judgment. 

See Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in part by Wagner 

v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Recommendation (Doc. # 8) is 

OVERRULED.

2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 7) is 

ADOPTED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 9) is 

DENIED.

4. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

A separate final judgment will be entered.

Case 2:16-cv-00080-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/16 Page 4 of 5
5

DONE this 11th day of April, 2016.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00080-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 04/11/16 Page 5 of 5