FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 8, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 07- 14930 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 1 4 1 4 9 - CV- J EM W A R R E N L A V E L L J A C K S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s H O N O R A B L E D W I G H T L . G E I G E R , H O N O R A B L E L A R R Y S C H A C K , 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

_________________________ ( Ju l y 8, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:To re c e ivede c larator y or inj un c tiv ere lie f, a

plaintif f m us t e sta bli shthat th e rewa s a 1 violation, that there is a serious risk of continuingirrepa rableinjury

if the re lief is not granted, and that there is an a

bsenceof an adequatereme dy at law. B olin v. St ory, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, Jackson had ade quate remedies at law. Under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, a person in state custody

may contest the re asons for the ir incarceration and may file a motion with the appropriate state c ourt. Fla .R.Crim.P . 3.850(a) . Any adver se rulingmay

be appe aled under F lorida law to a

n appropriate state a

ppellate c ourt from a

n order entered on a petition. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(g ). Thus, Jackson is not entitl ed to dec laratory or injunctive re lief. 2 W a rr e n L a ve l l J a c ks on, a s t a t e i nm a t e pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the s ua s p o n t e d i s mi s s a l o f

h i s 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 91 5(e) (2)( B )( i i ) f

or fa i l ure t o st at e acl ai m . H e a ss ert s thatthe st at e j ud ges a s s i gne d t o pr e s i de ove ra s t a t e c our tpos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ng, J udge G e i ge ra nd J udge S c ha c k, de ni e d hi m due pr oc e s s a nd hi s r i ghtof a c c e s s t o the c our t s by r e f us i ng t o c onduc ta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng by t e l e phone on hi s m ot i on f or c ol l a t e r a l r e l i e f

. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d hi s s ui tba s e d on a f i ndi ng tha tJ udge G e i ge ra nd J udge S c ha c k ha d a bs ol ut e i m m uni ty . O n appe a l , he a r gue s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f

in d in g th a t J u d g e G e ig e ra n d J u d g e S c h a c k h a d a b s o lu te i m m uni ty be c a us e the y a bus e d the i ra uthor i ty by di s r e ga r di ng hi s num e r ous att em pt s t o exerci se hi s r i gh tof ac ce ss . H e f urther a rgues thateven i f J ud ge G ei ger a n d J u d g e S c h a c k h a v e a b s o lu te im m u n ity f r o m d a m a g e s , h e is s till e n title d to d e c la r a to ry a n d in

ju n c tiv e r e lie f

. 1 P r o c e d u r a lly , w e r e v ie w q u e s tio n s o f s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . R edeker- B arry v. U ni t ed S t at es , 47 6 F . 3d 11 89 , 11 90 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ). F eder al3

court s a re ob l i gat ed t o i nq ui re i nt o subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on sua s po nt e w henever i tm a y be l a c ki ng. U ni ve r s i ty of S outh A l a ba m a v. A m e r i c a n T oba c c o C o. , 168 F . 3 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) . Af t e rr e v i e wi n g J a c k s o n ’ s c o m p l a i n t , we c onc l ude tha tpur s ua ntt o R ooke rv. F i de l i ty T rus tC o. , 263 U . S . 413, 44 S . C t . 149, 68 L . E d. 362 ( 1923) , a nd D i s tr i c tof C ol um bi aC our tof

A ppe a l s v. F e l dm a n, 460 U . S . 46 2, 10 3 S . C t . 13 03 , 75 L . E d. 20 6 (19 83 ); 28 U . S . C . § 1 25 7, the di stri ctcourt di d n othave j uri sdi ct i on t o the ext entthatJa ckson w as chal l engi ng the val i di ty of a s t a t e c o u r td e c i s i o n o n th e m e r i t s o f h i s p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n c l a i m . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we construe the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al as un der R ul e 12(b)(1) for l ac k o f s ubj ec t m att erj uri sdi ct i on and aff i rm on thi s bas i s. M oreover, t o the ext entJa ckson w as notc ha l l e ngi ng the va l i di ty of the s t a t e c our tde c i s i on, hi s c l a i m i s ba rr e d by a b s o lu te ju d ic ia l im m u n ity a n d h e f a ile d to s ta te a c la im . AF F I RME D.