FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APRI L 2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 01 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 0- cv -0 04 24 -RWS
STEPHEN COX,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
HON. FRANK MILLS, III, HON. EL LEN MCELYEA, HON. N. JAC KSON HARRIS, ALISON DANACEAU, M. DEREK HARRIS, et al.,

Defend an t-Ap pe ll ees

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 2, 2 01 2)Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

St ep he n Co x, pr o c eed in g pr o se , ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s
ci vi l rig ht s co m

pl ai nt an d it s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to am en d hi s co m pl ai nt

. On ap pe al , Co x arg ue s th at : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t st at e co ur t jud ge s; (2) th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in di sm is si ng hi s clai m s ag ai ns t Ca rlt on Fie ld s, a

pr iv at e la w f

i r m; (3 ) th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in di sm is si ng wit ho ut

pr ejud ic e hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t hi s fo r m er co un se l Fi res te r; an d (4 ) th e di st ric t co ur t
ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to am en d hi s co m pl ai nt

. Afte r th or ou gh

rev ie w, we affi rm

.
W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of a co m pl ai nt ba se d on ab so lu te
im m un it y
. W oo ds v. Gam el , 13 2 F.3 d 14 17 , 1 4 19 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (d is cu ss in g a
de ni al of ab so lu te le gi s l a t i ve im m un it y ). W e al so rev ie w de no vo a di sm is sa l fo r
fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

. Cu nn in gh am v. Dis t. Att or ne y ’s Offi ce fo r Esca m bi a Cn ty.,
59 2 F.3 d 12 37 , 12 55 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ). W e rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n a su a sp on te
di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re to ti m el y se rv e a su m m on s an d co m

pl ai nt un de r Fed eral Ru le of
Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 4( m ). Ri ch ard so n v. J oh ns on , 5 98 F.3 d 73 4, 73 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ).

2W e al so rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n to am en d fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Bryant v. Du pr ee, 2 52 F.3d 11 61 , 11 63 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

Fi rs t, we reject Co x’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m s

ag ai ns t st at e c o u r t ju d g es

. A jud ge is en ti tl ed to ab so lu te jud ic ia l im m un it y fro m
da m ag es ari si ng fro m th os e act s ta ke n in he r jud ic ia l cap aci ty, un le ss sh e act s in th e
cl ear ab se nc e of al l juri sd ic ti on

. Si bl ey v. Lan do , 43 7 F.3 d 10 6 7 , 1 0 7 0 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 05 ). W he th er an act is do ne wit hi n a jud g e ’s ju d i c i al cap aci ty is de te rm in ed by
refe ren ce to “ th e na tu re of th e a c t i t se lf, i.e., whe th er it is a fu nc ti on no rm al ly

pe rfo rm ed by a jud ge , an d to th e ex pe ct at io ns of th e pa rti es , i.e., wh et he r th ey de al t
wit h th e ju d g e i n hi s of

fic ia l cap aci ty.” Mi rel es v. W aco , 50 2 U.S. 9, 12 (1 99 1) (q uo ta ti on o mi t t e d )

. Fu rth er, a jud ge do es no t act in th e “ cl ear ab se nc e of al l juri sd ic ti on ” whe n sh e act s erro ne ou sl y , m al ic io us ly, or in ex ces s of he r au th or it y , bu t

rat he r whe n sh e act s en ti rel y wit ho ut su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

. Dy ke s v. Hos em an n,
77 6 F.2d 94 2, 94 7- 48 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (en ba nc ). Gen eral ly, a jud ge wil l reta in he r
immu n i t y e ve n if it is al le ge d th at sh e co ns pi red wit h ot he r pa rti es to br in g ab ou t a
de pr iv at io n o f an ot he r’s rig ht s. Den ni s v . Spa rk s, 4 49 U.S. 24 , 30 -3 1 (1 98 0)

.
He r e , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in di sm is si ng Co x’s cl ai m s fo r da m ag es

ag ai ns t th e st at e jud ic ia ry de fen da nt s ba se d on ab so lu te jud ic ia l im m un it y
. Not hi ng
in th e reco r d s ug ge st s, an d Co x do es no t no w arg ue , th at th e st at e co ur t ge ne ral ly

3la ck ed su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er Co x’s su it ag ai ns t th e recr eat io n cen te r.

Add it io na ll y , th e m is co nd uc t th at Co x al le ge d be lo w an d no w arg ue s on ap pe al -- th at
th e st at e co ur t jud ge s he ld he ari ng s, di sp os ed of m ot io ns , an d m ad e recu sa l de ci si on s

-- are all , by th ei r na tu re, n or m al jud ic ia l fu nc ti on s.

W e are al so un pe rs ua de d by Co x’s c l a i m t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in
di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Carl to n Fi el ds , a p r i v a t e la w fir m

. In rev ie win g a
di sm is sa l un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ), we vi ew th e co m pl ai nt in
th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e pl ai nt iff an d acce pt th e well -p le ad ed fact s pr es en te d
th erei n as tru e. Am

. Uni te d Life In s. Co

. v. Mar ti ne z, 48 0 F.3 d 10 43 , 10 57 (1 1t h Ci r.
2 0 0 7 )

. Alt ho ug h th e co m pl ai nt ne ed no t se t fo rth de ta il ed fact ua l al le ga ti on s, th e pl ai nt iff m

us t al le ge su ffi ci en t fact s to ren de r th e cl ai m “ pl au si bl e on it s face .” Bel l
Atl an ti c Co rp . v. Twom

bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 57 0 (2 00 7)

.
Und er 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 , a pl ai nt iff m us t su ffi ci en tl y al le ge (1 ) th at an act or

om is si on de pr iv ed hi m of a rig ht , pr iv il eg e, or im m un it y se cu red by th e Co ns ti tu ti on

or la ws of th e Uni te d St at es ; an d (2 ) th at th e a c t o r o mi s s io n was co m m it te d by a

pe rs on act in g un de r co lo r of st at e la w. 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ; Hale v. Tall ap oo sa Cn ty.,
50 F.3d 15 79 , 15 82 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ).

4An ot he rwis e pr iv at e pe rs on act s un de r co lo r of st at e la w whe n he is “ a wil lfu l

pa rti ci pa nt in joi nt act io n” wit h a st at e act or

. Harv ey v. Harv ey , 94 9 F.2 d 11 27 , 11 33 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. In th is res pe ct , th e pl ai nt iff m us t “ pl ead in
de ta il , th ro ug h refe ren ce t o mat e ria l fact s, th e rel at io ns hi p or na tu re of th e

co ns pi racy” b et ween th e pr iv at e pe rs on an d th e st at e act o r

. I d

. I t is in su ffi ci en t to

“ m erel y st rin g to ge th er” di sc ret e ev en ts , w i th ou t sh owi ng su pp or t fo r a reas on ed

in fere nc e th at th e pr iv at e an d st at e act or s agre ed to vi ol at e th e pl ai nt iff ’s rig ht s. Id

.
Sect io n 19 85 do es no t it se lf crea te an y su bs ta nt iv e rig ht s, bu t in st ead se rv es

on ly as a ve hi cl e fo r vi nd ic at in g sp eci fic fed eral rig ht s a n d p r i vi le ge s whi ch ha ve
be en de fin ed el se whe re. Great Am

. Fed

. Sav

. & Loa n Ass ’n v. Nov ot ny, 44 2 U

. S

. 36 6, 37 6 (1 97 9)

. Und er Sect io n 19 85 (2 ), a p l a in ti ff m us t al le ge th at two or m or e

p e o p l e co ns pi red to im

pe de , hi nd er, ob st ru ct , or de feat th e “ du e co ur se of jus ti c e , ”
wit h th e in te nt to d e n y th e pl ai nt iff th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n of th e la ws. 42 U.S.C. §

19 85 (2 ). Und er Sect io n 19 85 (3 ), a p l a i n t i f f m us t al le ge th at two or m or e pe op le

co ns pi red to de pr iv e a n y p e r s on or cl as s of pe rs on s of th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n of th e
la ws. 42 U.S.C. § 19 85 (3 ). A cl ai m un de r Sect io n 19 85 (3 ) al s o req ui res an
al le ga ti on of in vi di ou s di sc riminat or y in te nt

. Trawai ns ki v. Uni te d Tech ., 31 3 F.3 d

12 95 , 12 99 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ). Fi na ll y , as lo ng as an at to rn ey ’s co nd uc t fal ls wit hi n th e

5sc op e of th e rep res en ta ti on of hi s cl ie nt , hi s co nd uc t is im m un e fro m an al le ga ti on of

a Sect io n 19 85 co ns pi racy. Fare se v. Sch erer , 34 2 F.3 d 12 23 , 12 32 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ).

Rel at ed ly, un de r Sect io n 19 86 , th e pl ai nt iff m us t a l l e g e th at a pe rs on ha d

kn owl ed ge of a co ns pi racy in vi ol at io n of Sect io n 19 85 an d, de sp it e ha vi ng th e po wer

to pr ev en t or ai d in pr ev en ti ng th e vi ol at io n, ne gl ect ed or refu se d to do so

. 42 U.S.C. § 19 86 ; Park v.C it y of Atl an ta , 12 0 F.3 d 11 57 , 11 59 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ). The refo re,
whe re th ere is no un de rlyin g co n s p i r a c y to su pp or t a Sect io n 19 85 cl ai m , th e
de riv at iv e Sect io n 19 86 cl ai m m u s t al so fai l. Fare se , 34 2 F.3 d at 12 32 n.1 2; Park , 12 0 F .3d at 1 15 9- 60

.
In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in di sm is si ng Co x’s cl a i ms a g a i n st
Carl to n Fi el ds fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e
12 (b )(6 ). Co x’s co m

pl ai nt di d n ot co nt ai n a su ffi ci en t fa ct ua l b as is fo r th e co ur t to

pr oc eed to ward a fi nd in g t ha t Carl to n Fi el ds , a pr iv at e la w f irm, an d t he st at e co ur t jud ge s ag reed to vi ol at e Co x’s ci vi l rig ht s. In st ead , Co x m erel y po in te d to in st an ces
whe re he be li ev ed th at th e jud ge s fav or ab ly di sp os ed of Carl to n F i e l d s ’s al le ge dl y
im pr op er p le ad in gs , par ti cu la rly its m ot io n fo r a ru le ni si he ari ng

.
Thi s fai lu re to su ffi ci en tl y al le ge a co ns pi racy is fat al to each of Co x’s cl ai m s,

as Carl to n F i e l d s th us ne it he r qu al ifi ed as a st at e act or un de r Sect io n 19 83 no r

6en ga ge d i n a co ns pi racy in vi ol at io n of Sect io n 1 98 5 a nd , der iv at el y , Sect io n 1 98 6.

Fu rth er, wit h res pe ct to Co x’s cl ai m s un de r Sect io ns 19 85 an d 19 86 , Carl to n Fi el ds ’s
al le ge dl y im pr op er co nd uc t, i nc lu di ng im pr op erl y se rv in g a de fect iv e an d u nt im el y

m ot io n for a ru le ni si he ari ng , was fu ll y wit hi n th e sc op e of it s rep res en ta ti on of th e

recr eat io n c en te r.

Nor do we fin d m eri t t o C o x ’s a rg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s
di sc ret io n in di sm is si ng wit ho ut pr ejud ic e hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t hi s fo rm er co un se l

Fi res te r. In fed eral co ur t, an in di vi du al de fen da nt m ay be se rv ed : (1 ) in acco rd an ce
wit h Geo rg ia law, (2) by pe rs on al se rv ic e, (3 ) by le av in g a co py of th e co m pl ai nt at
th e de fen da nt ’s dwe ll in g wit h a res id en t of su it ab le ag e, or (4 ) by se rv in g th e
de fen da nt ’s ag en t to rece iv e se rv ic e of pr oc es s, whet he r au th or iz ed by ap po in tm en t

or by la w. Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 4( e). Si m il arl y , un de r Geo rg ia la w, if se rv ic e is no t waiv ed by th e de fen da nt , it m

us t be m ad e “ to th e de fen da nt pe rs on al ly, or by le av in g co pi es
th ereo f at th e de fen da nt ’s dwe ll in g ho us e

. . . or by de li ve rin g a co py of th e su m m on s

an d co m pl ai nt to an ag en t au th or iz ed by ap po in tm en t or by la w to rece iv e se rv ic e of

pr oc es s.” Ga. Co de A n n. § 9- 11 -4 (e)( 7)

. The pl ai nt iff m us t effe ct su ch se rv ic e
wit hi n 1 2 0 d a y s aft er fil in g hi s co m pl ai nt , or , ab se nt a sh owi ng of go od cau se , th e

co ur t m us t di sm is s th e act io n wit ho ut pr ejud ic e ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt or or de r se rv ic e

to be m ad e wit hi n a sp eci fie d t im e p eri od . Fed .R.Ci v.P . 4(m ).

7In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in di sm is si ng wit ho ut

pr ejud ic e Co x’s cl ai m s ag a i n s t Fi res te r fo r fai lu re to se rv e un de r Ru le 4( m ). The

reco rd in di cat es th at , aft er two fai le d at te m pt s to se rv e Fi res te r at a U.P.S. P.O. Bo x,
Co x in st ead de li ve red th e co m pl ai nt an d su m

m on s to th e Att or ne y Gen eral an d to an

un na m ed U.P.S em

pl oyee. Eve n ass um in g th at Fi res et er had a co nt ract wit h U.P.S.

to m ai nt ai n a P.O. B ox , n ot hi ng in th e reco rd in di cat es th at Fi res te r au th or i z e d a ny
U.P

. S. em

pl oyee to act as hi s ag en t to rece iv e se rv ic e of pr oc es s, an d Geo rg ia la w
do es no t crea te su ch an ag en cy

. Mo reo ve r, no th in g in th e reco rd in d i c a t e s t ha t

se rv ic e o n F ire st er was ot he rwis e acc om pl is he d i n a ny perm is si bl e m an ne r.

Fi na ll y , we do no t a g r e e wit h Co x’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s
di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to am en d hi s co m pl ai nt

. Und er Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l

Pro ced ur e 15 (a)( 2) , th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld free ly gr an t th e pl ai nt iff le av e to am en d

hi s co m pl ai nt wher e jus ti ce s o re qu ire s. Fed.R.C iv .P. 15 (a)( 2) ; Bry an t, 25 2 F.3d at
11 63

. Howev er, th e co ur t ne ed no t gr an t le av e whe re th e am en dm en t wou ld be fu ti le

. Bryant , 25 2 F.3 d at 11 63

. An am en dm en t is fu ti le whe re th e co m pl ai nt as am en de d

wou ld st il l b e su bjec t t o di sm is sa l. Hal l v . Uni te d In s. Co . of. Am ., 36 7 F .3d 12 55 , 12 62 -6 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4)

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Co x’s m ot io n to

am en d h is co m

pl ai nt be cau se th e co m

pl ai nt , as am en de d, wou ld st il l be su bjec t to

8di sm is sa l. The di st ric t co ur t f o u n d , aft er rev ie win g th e m eri ts of th e pr op os ed

am en dm en t, th at Co x ag ai n f a i l e d t o st at e a cl ai m fo r rel ie f. Sp eci fic al ly, Co x’s

am en de d co mp la in t, su bs ta nt iv el y si m il ar to hi s or ig in al co m pl ai nt , fai le d to

ov erco m e ab so lu te jud ic ia l im m un it y , to su ffi ci en tl y al le ge a co ns pi racy be twee n
Carl to n Fiel ds an d t he st at e co ur t j ud ge s, or to rem ed y th e fact th at Fi res te r was no t
ti m el y ser ve d wi th th e o rig in al co m pl ai nt . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm

.
AFFIRMED.

9