FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 11 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10679 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 1 0 0 5 4 - C V - K MM C H A R L E S F O R C E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D A N N Y L . K O L H A G E , M A R K J O N E S , R I C H A R D P A Y N E , D A V I D L . L E V Y , G E R A L D B . C O P E , M E L V I A B . G R E E N e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 11, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es.District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U .S. 462, 103 S.C t. 1303, 75 1 L .Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.C t. 149, 68 L .Ed. 362 (1923) 2 P E R C U R I A M: C ha r l e s F or c e appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of the c l a i m s he br ought unde rthe C i vi l R i ght s A c t , 42 U . S . C . §§ 1983, 1985, a nd the R a c ke t e e r i ng Infl uence C orruptO rgani za t i on S t atut e ( “ R IC O ”) , 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 2(c) and (d), a ga i ns tF l or i da s t a t e c our tJ udge s D a vi d L . L e vy , G e r a l d B . C ope , M e l i a G r e e n, R ic h a r d P a y n e a n d M a r k J o n e s , a n d th e c o u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f D a n n y L . K o lh a g e , C le r k o f M o n r o e C o u n ty , F lo r id a , C ir c u it C o u r t. F orce ’ s c l ai m s s t em fr om ac t i on s he broug htagai nstK ol hage i n F l ori da courtthat th e d e f e n d a n t ju d g e s d is p o s e d o f a d v e r s e ly to F o r c e . I n pr os e c ut i ng thi s appe a l , he pr e s e nt s tw o pr i nc i pa l a r gum e nt s . F i r s t , the di stri ctcourterre d i n d i sm i ss i ng hi s c om pl ai ntfor l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on unde rthe R ooke r - F e l dm a n doc tr i ne . A l t e rna t i ve l y , he a r gue s tha the 1 w as no taf

forded du e proces s i n st at e c ou rt , w hi ch const i tut ed “ fr aud” that“ vi t i at ed th e [ s ta te ] c o u r t’s p r o c e e d in g s ” a n d r e n d e r e d th e s ta te d e c is io n s n o t e n title d to F u ll F a i th a nd C r e di t . S e c ond, F or c e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng h is c la im s f

o rd a m a g e s a g a in s t th e ju d g e s o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e y w e r e e n title d to absol ut e j ud i ci al i m m un i ty. A s t o thi s a rgum ent , he st at es thatthe di sm i ss alIn additi on to t he setw o a

rguments , F orc ec ontend s th at th edis tric t c ourt erre d in 2 denyinghismotion s todis qu alif y theF lorida

Attor ney General, f

or dis c ov ery, a

nd to dismiss Ko lhag e ’satto rn e y , a

nd hisa pp lic atio n f

or a tempo ra ry inj un c tion. Sin c ethec ourt prop erly dismiss ed his claims for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker- Fe ldman doctrine, w e nee d not reach thesearguments. 3 vi ol a t e d hi s “ c i vi l a nd c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . ” W e a ddr e s s the s e a r gum e nt s i n turn. 2 I. T he R ooke r - F e l dm a n doc tr i ne hol ds tha ta f e de r a l di s tr i c tc our tl a c ks j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a s t a t e c our t ’ s f i na l j udgm e nt . A m os v. G l y nn C ounty B d. of T ax A ssesso rs, 3 4 7 F . 3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 6 5 -6 6 n . 1 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). F o u r cri t eri a m u st be m e tf orthe doc tr i ne t o appl y : ( 1) the pa r ty i n f e de r a l c our ti s the s a m e a s i n the s t a t e c our t ; ( 2) the s t a t e c ourtrul i ng w a s a f i na l j udgm e nton the m e r i t s ; ( 3) the p la in tif f in f e d e r a l c o u r t h a d a r e a s o n ab le o p p o r tu n ity to r a is e h is c la im s in th e s ta te courtproceedi ng ; and (4) the i ss ue before the fe dera l courtw as ei ther a dj ud i ca t ed b y th e s ta te c o u r t o rin e x tr ic ab ly in te r tw in e d w ith its ju d g m e n t. I d . T h e d o c tr in e is confi ned t o cas es thatar e “ brou gh tby st at e- courtl oser s c om pl ai ni ng of i nj uri es c a us e d by s t a t e - c our tj udgm e nt s r e nde r e d be f or e the di s tr i c tc our tpr oc e e di ngs com m ence d and i nv i t i ng di stri ctcourtre vi ew and rej ec t i on of tho se j ud gm ent s. ” E x x o n M o b il C o rp . v . S a u d i B a s ic I n d u s . C o rp ., 5 4 4 U .S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 , 1 2 5 S .C t. 15 17 , 15 21 -22, 16 1 L . E d. 2d 45 4 (20 05 ). H er e, the defendantj ud ges pre si ded o ver s t at e c ou rtac t i on s i n w hi ch F orce4

w as a p ar ty an d d en ied h is claim s f o r r elief. T h o se claim s a ro se fr o m K o lh ag e’s a l l e ge d f a i l ur e t o f

i l e doc um e nt s on F or c e ’ s be ha l f , both pr i ort o a nd dur i ng the s t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ngs . F or c e now s e e ks f e de r a l c our tr e l i e f

ba s e d upon w ha the b e lie v e s w e r e im p r o p e rru lin g s in th o s e c a s e s . T h e p r o c e d u r a l f r a m e w o r k in th is c a s e is s im ila rto th a t d e s c r ib e d b y th e C o u r t in E x x o n M o b il. S e e E x x o n M o b il, 5 4 4 U .S . a t 2 8 4 . M o r e o v e r , a ll o f th e R o o k e r - F e ld m a n e le m e n ts h a v e b e e n m e t. F o r c e ’s R o o k e r - F e ld m a n a r g u m e n t th e r e f o r e f a ils . II . Ju d g es are en t i t l ed t o ab so l u t e j u d i ci al i m m u n i ty fro m d am ag es fo r th o se a c t s t a ke n w hi l e the y a r e a c t i ng i n the i rj udi c i a l c apa c i ty , unl e s s the y a c t e d i n a c l e a rabs e nc e of

j ur i s di c t i on. M i r e l e s v. W a c o, 502 U . S . 9, 9- 12, 112 S . C t . 286, 287- 81, 116 L . E d. 2d 9 ( 1991) . F or c e pr e s e nt s nothi ng t o s uppor tthe pr opos i t i on thatthe defendantj ud ges a ct ed ou t si de of thei r j ud i ci al autho ri ty or i n a cl ea r abs e nc e of

j ur i s di c t i on. I nde e d, i tappe a r s f r om hi s c om pl a i nta nd s ubs e que nt f i l i ngs tha tthe j udge s a c t e d w i thi n the i rj ur i s di c t i on i n i s s ui ng the c om pl a i ne d of o r d e r s a n d m a n a g in g th e c a s e s h e f ile d . W e f in d n o b a s is f

o rd is tu rb in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. I t is a c c o r d in g ly AF F I R ME D.