[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-14103 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cv-01047-MSS-DAB

HENRY MCCONE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ORLANDO, 

a municipal corporation and political

subdivision of the State of Florida, 

SCOTT ZOLLARS, 

individually and in his official capacity, 

CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC., 

NATALIE LALL, 

individually and as an agent and 

employee of CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 

ROM POWELL, 

JANET THORPE,

REGINALD WHITEHEAD,

individually and in their official capacities,

Defendants-Appellees.

Case: 11-14103 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 1 of 6 
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(November 15, 2012)

Before BARKETT, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Henry McCone appeals pro se the dismissal sua sponte of his complaint 

about the violation of his civil rights by the City of Orlando; Scott Zollars, the 

chief of the City parking bureau; CB Richard Ellis, Inc., a commercial building 

manager; Natalie Lall, an employee of Ellis; and Rom Powell, Janet Thorpe, and 

Reginald Whitehead, three judges of the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

McCone’s complaint stemmed from his receipt of four traffic citations for 

violating a municipal ordinance that prohibited parking in a space with an expired 

parking meter. See Orlando, Fla., Code § 39.45. McCone contested the citations. 

An officer of the City parking bureau held a hearing on one citation and found 

McCone guilty of the parking offense, but an official vacated the decision for the 

citation to be adjudicated before a judge. After another hearing officer 

consolidated McCone’s three other citations and adjudicated him guilty of the 

parking offenses, McCone appealed. The Circuit Court of Orange County reversed 

two of McCone’s adjudications, but affirmed his third adjudication. McCone then 

Case: 11-14103 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 2 of 6 
3

petitioned the Fifth District Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari, which the 

court denied. Dissatisfied with that decision, McCone intended to “file[] in the 5th 

[District Court] [a] motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc, request for written 

opinion, and certification of conflict.”

McCone sought monetary and injunctive relief from the defendants on the 

grounds that they had violated his rights of due process and equal protection by 

prosecuting the citations, denied him access to the traffic courts to appeal the 

decisions, and retaliated after he exercised his right to appeal. He alleged that the 

City could not prove that he had violated the parking ordinance; the City and 

Zollar had “abus[ed] the process and engag[ed] in extortion” when they prosecuted 

McCone’s citations; and Ellis, Lall, and the City had revoked McCone’s parking 

permit because he challenged the citations in the traffic court. McCone also 

alleged that a City official refused initially to file a form required to contest the 

citations, but McCone also alleged that the official later submitted the form to the 

traffic court. McCone attached to his complaint copies of his parking citations and 

his correspondence with City officials, the decision of the Circuit Court of Orange 

County, and partial transcripts of hearings before officers of the parking bureau. 

McCone moved to proceed as an indigent.

A magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny McCone’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss McCone’s complaint. The 

Case: 11-14103 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 3 of 6 
4

magistrate judge concluded that McCone could not obtain “review of the judgment 

entered in the state court concerning his parking citations” because “the state court 

decisions [were] not final” and, “[e]ven if the judgments were final, the Court 

[lacked] jurisdiction to review or overturn state court judgments adverse to 

[McCone].” See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 

(1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923). In the 

alternative, the magistrate judge concluded that McCone failed to state a claim 

because the penalties that McCone faced did not implicate a constitutional right; 

the state court judges were entitled to absolute immunity; and McCone had failed 

to establish that Ellis and Lall were state actors.

The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge “in 

all respects” and dismissed McCone’s complaint. The district court ruled that 

McCone’s claims involving his prosecution for parking offenses were barred under 

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that McCone’s claims against Ellis and Lall were 

“barred by the state actor requirement.” The district court also ruled that 

McCone’s claim “against judges . . . for the conduct of their judicial functions 

[was] . . . barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity.”

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction, Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009), and for 

failure to state a claim, Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir.1997). 

Case: 11-14103 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 4 of 6 
5

We also review de novo the grant of judicial immunity. Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 

1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001). “We may affirm the district court’s judgment on any 

ground that appears in the record, whether or not that ground was relied upon or 

even considered by the court below.” Powers v. United States, 996 F.2d 1121, 

1123–24 (11th Cir. 1993).

The district court correctly dismissed McCone’s complaint. McCone sought 

to overturn a decision of the state courts finding him guilty of one parking offense 

and to thwart prosecution of a second similar offense, but comity required that the 

district court abstain from interfering with McCone’s ongoing proceedings in the 

state court. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971); The NewsJournal Corp. v. Foxman, 939 F.2d 1499, 1510 n.13 (11th Cir. 1991). The district 

court could not grant McCone relief against the three state court judges because an 

injunction would have interfered with the judicial function of the state courts, see

Wexler v. Lepore, 385 F.3d 1336, 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 2004), and because the 

judges were immune from McCone’s claim for damages, see Sibley v. Lando, 437 

F.3d 1067, 1071 (11th Cir. 2005). McCone lacked standing to seek relief for being 

denied access to the courts because he was permitted to challenge his citations in 

the traffic court. See Jackson v. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 331 F.3d 790, 

797 (11th Cir. 2003). And McCone failed to state a claim that Ellis and Lall acted 

under color of state law when they revoked McCone’s parking permit. See Focus 

Case: 11-14103 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 5 of 6 
6

on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1277 (11th Cir. 

2003). The correspondence attached to McCone’s complaint established that Ellis 

decided unilaterally to revoke the parking permit because it did not want to 

jeopardize its lease with the City.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of McCone’s complaint.

Case: 11-14103 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 6 of 6