[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11017

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MARILYN ARUCA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LINDA R. ALLAN, 

individually, and in her official capacity as 

6th Circuit Court Judge, 

MICHAEL MOSKAL, 

Personal Representative and Co-Trustee of the 

Shawn G. Washinko Trust, 

THOMAS TASCHLER, 

Co-Trustee of the Shawn G. Washinko Trust, 

CHRISTINA RANKIN, 

Esq., 

USCA11 Case: 22-11017 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11017

ROBERT PERSANTE, 

Esq., et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-00381-TPB-AEP

____________________

Before WILSON, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marilyn Aruca, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing her complaint, which asserted claims under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against a state court judge and private parties. Aruca 

does not challenge the dismissal of her claims against the privateparty defendants. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 

F.3d 678, 680-82 (11th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the dispositive issue 

on appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing Aruca’s 

claims against state court judge Linda Allan. 

Aruca’s complaint alleges that Allan acted outside her judicial capacity by ruling on the validity of a name-and-arms clause in 

the will of the father of Aruca’s child. She says that, on behalf of her 

minor child, she “asked the probate court to take judicial notice of 

USCA11 Case: 22-11017 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 2 of 5
22-11017 Opinion of the Court 3

an Order and Final Judgment entered by the Family Court which 

found it was not in the child’s best interest to change his name five 

years earlier.” But despite this request, Allan ruled valid the nameand-arms clause, which conditioned a devise to Aruca’s son on the 

son adopting the decedent-father’s last name. Aruca contends this 

ruling violates her constitutional rights and filed this lawsuit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against Allan. On appeal after 

the dismissal of her complaint, Aruca argues the district court erred 

in ruling that Allan is entitled to absolute judicial immunity against

her claims. We disagree and affirm.

We review de novo whether a judicial officer is entitled to 

absolute judicial immunity. Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1301 

(11th Cir. 2017). 

Absolute judicial immunity bars a claim for damages against 

a judge acting in his or her official capacity unless the judge acted 

in the “‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 

1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 

349, 356-57 (1978)). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), held that judicial immunity does 

not protect state court judges from claims for injunctive relief under Section 1983, id. at 541, Congress later amended Section 1983 

to bar claims for injunctive relief against judges acting in their judicial capacity unless “‘a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.’” Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1242 (quoting 42 

U.S.C. § 1983). In other words, a plaintiff cannot obtain an injunction against a state court judge unless the plaintiff establishes that

USCA11 Case: 22-11017 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11017

the judge acted in a non-judicial capacity, or if the judge acted in a 

judicial capacity, that the judge violated a declaratory decree or

that declaratory relief is unavailable to the plaintiff.

Aruca argues that Allan’s ruling was outside her judicial capacity, but we disagree. To determine whether a judge acted in a 

judicial capacity, we consider whether (1) the challenged action 

was part of the ordinary judicial function; (2) the challenged action 

occurred in chambers or in court; (3) the challenged action “involved a case pending before the judge;” and (4) the challenged action arose out of a visit to a judge in the judge’s official capacity. 

Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, Allan

acted within her judicial capacity because she made a legal ruling 

in a proceeding in her court. Ruling on pending actions is the core 

of the judicial function. And Aruca’s assertion that Allan lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the validity of the is insufficient to

render Allan’s action outside her judicial capacity, even if Aruca is 

correct on the jurisdictional point. See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239 (explaining that a judge acts within the judicial capacity even if the act 

is in excess of jurisdiction so long as that excess does not amount 

to the “‘clear absence of all jurisdiction’” (quoting Stump, 435 U.S. 

at 356-57)). 

Aruca also argues that Allan is not immune because she 

seeks injunctive relief instead of damages. Again, we disagree. 

Aruca does not argue that declaratory relief was unavailable or that 

Allan violated a declaratory judgment, which are prerequisites to 

injunctive relief against a state court judge under Section 1983. See 

USCA11 Case: 22-11017 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 4 of 5
22-11017 Opinion of the Court 5

42 U.S.C. § 1983. As to her complaint’s claim for declaratory relief, 

Allan fails to address this issue on appeal in its entirety. Because an 

appellant’s failure to brief an issue on appeal abandons the issue, 

even if the appellant litigates pro se, Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 

870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008), Aruca has abandoned any claim for declaratory relief. But, even had Aruca raised her claim for declaratory relief on appeal, we have held that such relief is unavailable 

against a state court judge when the state judicial system provides 

an adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal of the state judge’s 

ruling. See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1242; Sibley, 437 F.3d at 1074. 

Thus, the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11017 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 5 of 5