[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-11281

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cv-01058-MMH-JRK

ROBERT CRAIG MACLEOD, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

TOM BEXLEY, 

in his personal capacity as a Government-official 

(Deputy Court Clerk Flagler County, Florida), 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 17, 2018)

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-11281 Date Filed: 04/17/2018 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Robert Craig Macleod, proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal 

of his civil action seeking monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief for court 

clerk Tom Bexley’s failure to file his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in state court because 

of his status as a vexatious litigant under Florida law. On appeal, Macleod 

contends that the district court erred in applying the Rooker-Feldman1 and 

Younger2 doctrines because there was no claim that implicated either doctrine.

When a plaintiff makes a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court reviewing that motion “shall dismiss the case” if the 

underlying action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We review a district court’s sua 

sponte dismissal under this provision de novo, viewing the allegations in the 

complaint as true. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). We 

apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standard to dismissals based on a failure to state a claim, 

id., meaning that dismissal is appropriate if the complaint, on its face, does not 

 1 Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923), and Dist. of Columbia Court 

of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1986) (precluding lower federal courts 

from reviewing state court judgments). 2 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971) (providing that federal courts 

generally will not interfere with pending state judicial proceedings).

Case: 17-11281 Date Filed: 04/17/2018 Page: 2 of 6 
3

state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 

1937, 1949 (2009).3

Although we have generally prohibited sua sponte dismissals in cases where 

the plaintiff was not given notice of the court’s intent to dismiss or an opportunity 

to amend, see Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 

2007), reversal is not mandated if amendment of the complaint would be futile 

because it is frivolous or is patently and irremediably insufficient. Byrne v. 

Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1127 n.99 (11th Cir. 2001), abrogated in part on other 

grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639, 128 S. Ct. 2131

(2008); see also Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th Cir. 2011). 

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional rule that precludes federal 

district courts from reviewing “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of 

injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court 

proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those 

judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 

125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521–22 (2005). Similarly, under the Younger abstention 

doctrine, federal courts will not interfere with certain state civil proceedings, 

including “civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in 

 3 Although we “hold the allegations of a pro se complaint to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers,” this “leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto 

counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” 

Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Case: 17-11281 Date Filed: 04/17/2018 Page: 3 of 6 
4

furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” Sprint 

Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588 (2013). 

A district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim based 

upon the affirmative defense of judicial immunity “when the defense is an obvious 

bar given the allegations,” even if the defendant has not asserted the defense. 

Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Although 

court clerks are not entitled to immunity from claims for equitable relief, they 

“have absolute immunity from actions for damages arising from acts they are 

specifically required to do under court order or at a judge’s direction.” Tarter v. 

Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir. 1981).4

 

In the instant case, Macleod sued the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Circuit 

Court of Flagler County, Florida. That clerk had written him a letter declining to 

accept a case for filing pursuant to a state court order declaring Macleod a 

vexatious litigant.

5 That state court order6 prohibited Macleod from pro se 

 4 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (holding that 

all decisions of the Fifth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981 are binding precedent 

in the Eleventh Circuit). 

5 See Doc. 13-2 (clerk’s letter). 6 Macleod did not file the state court order in the instant case. The magistrate judge posited that 

this was an attempt to “evade dismissal under [the Rooker-Feldman or Younger] doctrines by 

omitting specific references to the state court vexatious-litigant order.” Doc. 14 at 6. However, 

the magistrate judge took judicial notice of the order, which Macleod had filed as an exhibit in at 

least one of numerous prior federal district court actions. Id.at 5–6. This was not improper. See 

Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S. Ct. 2499, 2509 (2007); 

see also United States v. Glover, 179 F.3d 1300, 1302 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. 

Case: 17-11281 Date Filed: 04/17/2018 Page: 4 of 6 
5

appearances and barred him from making additional pro se filings. Although 

couched in different terms, Macleod essentially asks the federal courts to review

the state court order. We will not do so, and, after de novo review, we find no 

error in the district court’s refusal to do so.

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district court did not have 

jurisdiction to consider Macleod’s complaint because it falls into the class of

“state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments 

rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district 

court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at

284, 125 S. Ct. at 1521–22. Similarly, Macleod’s claim involves an order

“uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial 

functions,” and it is thus barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Sprint 

Commc’ns, 134 S. Ct. at 588. Insofar as Macleod claims monetary damages, the 

clerk is entitled to absolute immunity because he declined to file Macleod’s 

pleading pursuant to a court order. See Tarter, 646 F.2d at 1013. And although 

the district court did not give Macleod an opportunity to amend his pleadings, 

reversal is not mandated because amendment would be futile, as the complaint is 

patently and irremediably insufficient. See Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1127 n.99. 

 

Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994). The state court order is available at Appendix 3, 

Macleod v. Bexley, No. 3:16-cv-00464-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2016), ECF No. 17-3.

Case: 17-11281 Date Filed: 04/17/2018 Page: 5 of 6 
6

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-11281 Date Filed: 04/17/2018 Page: 6 of 6