FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 55 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cv -1 41 49 -J EM
GEORGE MANNING, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us JUDGE DAVID HARPER, Decea se d, Tri al Ju dg e o f Est at e, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt , JUDGE DAN VAUG HN, App el la te , JUDGE ELIZABETH METZ GER, App el la te Adm in is tra ti ve , JUDGE KATHLE EN ROBERTS, Co un ty Cou rt, JUDGE BARBARA BRONIS, App el la te , JUDGE LARRY SCHACK, App el la te , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s–App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 9, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Afte r lo si ng a ci vi l ac ti on th athe bro ug htin Flo rid a st at e co urt, Geo rg e Man ni ng fil edsu it pr o s e in fed eral co urt und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 , cla im in g t ha t th e jud ge s wh o p res id edov er h is st at e cas e an d i ts ap pe al de pr iv edhi m of h is rig ht to du e p ro ces s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atitlac ke d s ub ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er s om e o f hi s cl ai m s b as edup on th e Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e an d 1 di sm is se d t he rem ai nd er as ba rredby abs ol ut e jud ic ia l i m m un it y . For t he reas on s th atfol lo w, we di sm is s i n p art , affi rm in part, v acat e in pa rt, a ndrem an d wi th in st ru ct io ns . I. Man ni ng su edth e co m

pa ny he h ire d t o m on it orth e rem ov al of m ol d fr om

The doc trine derives from two Supreme Court decisions: Rooke r v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 1 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923), a nd D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 476-82 (1983).

2hi s p ro pe rty. Ju dg e Dav idHarp er h eardMan ni ng ’s cas e in Flo rid a Sm al l Cl ai m s 2 Co urt i n 2 00 8, ru le d a ga in sthi m , andord eredhi m to pa y att orne y s’ fees . Man ni ng ap pe al edto a th ree ju dg e Fl or id a Ci rcu itCo urt p an el , whi ch affi rm edJu dg e Harp er’s ru li ng . The ap pe ll at e p an el als o d en ie d M an ni ng ’s reque stforreh eari ng . App el la te Ju dg e Eli zab eth M et zg er o rd eredMan ni ng to pay att orne y s’ fees for fil in g t he reh eari ng reque stan d re m an de d t he cas e to Ju dg e Kathl een Ro be rts fora de te rm in at io n o f th e fee am ou nt . Man ni ng su edin fed eral co urt, cl ai m in g t ha t t he Flo rid a jud ge s d ep riv ed hi m of due pro ces s i n v io la ti on of t he Fo urte en th Am en dm en t i n t he fol lo win g way s: Man ni ng all eg edth atJu dg e Harp er wou ldno t l oo k a t h is ev id en ce, fal se ly 3
sa idth athe di d n otan swe r qu es ti on s, fo rcedfal se ev id en ce i nt o t he reco rd , was ge ne ral ly bia se d, an d a ward edatt orne y s’ fees in vi ol at io n o f Fl or id a la w. Man ni ng furth er al le ge d t he th ree app el la te jud ge s re fu se d t o re co gn iz e th atJu dg e Harp er h adm an ip ul at edth e ev id en ce, wro ng ly det erm in edth atth ey di d n otha ve a
se tt le d re co rd , wron gl y

fou ndth atatt orne y s’ fees were jus ti fie d,
Be cause we a ddress a

fac ial dismiss al for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction and for 2 failure to state a c laim, the fac ts are de rived fr om solely Manning ’s complaint. See McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t of Augusta-Richm ond Cnty. , 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 ( 11th Cir. 2007). Be fore Manningfiled suit, J udg e Ha rper died . Ther efor e, Judge H arpe r’s Estate was 3 named in the c omplaint as a def endant. 3“ m is ap pr eh en de d” hi s cl ai m th atJu dg e Harp er s ho ul d h av e wri tt enanop in io n
ex pl ai ni ng th e d is m is sa l o f hi s ca se , andot he rwis e fai le d t o a ckno wled ge th e
subs ta nt ia l erro rs he cla im edth e Sm al l Cl ai m s C ou rt h adm ad e. Man ni ng als o al le ge d t he ap pe ll at e p an el ov erl oo ke d t he is su es he id en ti fie d andde ni edhi s reque stfora reh eari ng . There aft er, acc or di ng to Man ni ng , Ju dg e Me tz ge r
wro ng ly ord eredhi m

to pay att orne y s’ fees forfai li ng to supp ly the in fo rm at io n requi redto jus ti fy

reh eari ng , refu se d t o re co ns id er tha t d eci si on , anddi d n ot pe rm itMan ni ng a he ari ng to de te rm in e if he ha d b eenpro pe rly serv edwith h is op po ne nt ’s in te nt io n t o s eekfees . Fin al ly, Man ni ng all eg edth atJu dg e Ro be rts pr ev en te d h im

fro m arg ui ng th athe was n otpro pe rly serv ed , fai le d t o fo ll ow di sc ov ery ru le s, re fu se d t o re sp on d t o h is qu es ti on s ab ou t t he leg it im acy of he r
or de r be cau se itwas n otsi gn ed , rul edth atsh e co ul d i ss ue anord er o n t he op po si ng att orne y s’ st at io nary , hel d h im in co nt em

pt , andde cl in edto ex pl ai n h ow sh e h adcal cu la te d t he fees
. All de fen da nt s ex cep t t he Est at e o f Ju dg e Harp er m ov edto di sm is s fo r la ck of subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on an d fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt de te rm in edth atitlac ke d s ub ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er s ev eral of Man ni ng ’s cla im s b ecau se th e cl ai m s co ul d o nl y su ccee d i f th e co urt h el d t ha t t he st at e co urts ha d wro ng ly deci de d t he is su es . The remaind er o f Man ni ng ’s cla im s 4ag ai ns t t ho se de fen da nt s, t he co urt fo un d, wer e b arre d b y ab so lu te jud ic ia l imm un it y an d t hu s fa il edto st at e a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d. An d, fin di ng th atMan ni ng ha d n ev er s erv edth e Est at e o f Ju dg e Harp er, the di st ric t
co urt d is m is se d a ll of M an ni ng ’s cla im s ag ai ns t J ud ge Harp er. Thi s i s M an ni ng ’s ap pe al
. II. W e rev ie w a di sm is sa l fo r la ckof s ub ject- m atte r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Ni ch ol so n v . Sh af

e , 55 8 F .3d12 66 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Lik ewis e, we rev ie w de no vo a di stric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f a p la in ti ff’s cl ai m s as ba rredby abs ol ut e imm un it y . Lo ng

v. Sa tz , 18 1 F .3d12 75 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). In b ot h i ns ta nc es , we acc ep t t he co m

pl ai nt ’s well -p le ad edfactua l al le ga ti on s as tru e. McElmu rr ayv. Co ns ol . Gov’ t o

f Augu st a- Rich mon d C

nt y. , 50 1 F .3d12 44 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). And , bec au se Man ni ng pro ceed s pr o s e , we con st ru e h is pl ead in gs li be ral ly. Alb ra v. Adv an , Inc
. , 49 0 F .3d82 6, 8 29 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). III. Fi rs t, we o bs erv e th at , alt ho ug h t he di st ric t co urt d is cu ss edso m e o f th em in th e o rd er fro m

whi ch Man ni ng ap pe al s, M an ni ng ’s cla im s ag ai ns t t he Est at e o f Ju dg e Harp er ar e n otpro pe rly befo re u s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d M an ni ng ’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he Est at e fo r fai lu re t o p erfe ctservi ce af te r Man ni ng ha d a lre ady 5fil edth is ap pe al . Man ni ng di d n otfil e a n ew no ti ce o f ap pe al or a m en d h is

ex is ti ng no ti ce o f ap pe al to id en ti fy th atord er. Alt ho ug h we l ib eral ly con st ru e
no ti ces of app eal fil edby a pr o s e li ti ga nt s, o urjuri sd ic ti on is res tri ct edto th e
or de rs anap pe ll an t s pe ci fie s. Se e Mo to n v . Cow ar t , 63 1 F .3d13 37 , 13 41 n.2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . W e are ge ne ral ly notat l ib ert y to in fer a n app el la nt ’s in te ntto de si gn at e in hi s n ot ic e o f ap pe al anord er tha t was no t en te redun ti l af te r th e n ot ic e of ap pe al was fi le d. McDou ga ld v. Jen so n , 78 6 F .2d14 65 , 14 74 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). W e th eref

or e d is m is s M an ni ng ’s app eal with re sp ectto hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he Est at e o f Ju dg e Harp er b ecau se we lac k app el la te juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the m . Sec o n d , th e di st ric t co urt de te rm in ed th at it la ck ed juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er
se ve ral of Man ni ng ’s cl ai m s un de r th e Roo ker -Feldma n d o c tri ne . Und er th at do ctrin e, “ a fed eral di st ric t co urt ha s ‘no au th or it y to rev ie w fin al jud gm en ts of a st at e
co urt in jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Ni ch ol so n , 55 8 F.3 d at 12 72 (quo ti ng D.C. Ct
. of App ea ls v. Feld

man , 46 0 U.S. 46 2, 48 2 (1 98 3) ). Fed eral di stric t co urts m ay no t he ar

“ cas es br ou gh t by st at e-co urt lo se rs co m pl ai ni ng of in

juri es c a u s e d by st at e-co urt jud gm en ts ren de red be fo re th e di st ric t co urt pr o c eed in gs co m m en ced an d in vi ti ng di st ric t co urt rev ie w an d reject io n of th os e jud gm en ts .” Exxo n Mob il Co rp . v. Sa ud i Bas ic In du s. Co rp . , 54 4 U.S. 28 0, 28 4 ( 2 0 05 ). Roo ker
- Feld man ap pl ie s bo th to cl ai m s act u a l l y r a is ed in th e st at e co urt as well as th os e th at are “ ‘ine xt ric ab ly
6in te rtwi ne d’” wit h th e st at e co urt jud gm en t. Ca sa le v. Ti llman , 55 8 F.3 d 12 58 , 12 60

(1 1t h C ir. 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Feld man , 46 0 U.S. at 48 2 n.1 6) . “ A cla im is in ex tri cab ly in te rtwi ne d if it wou ld effe ct iv el y nu ll ify th e st at e co urt jud gm en t, or it su ccee ds on ly to th e ex te nt th at th e st at e co urt wro ng ly de ci de d th e is s u e s . ” I d. (ci ta ti on s an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Afte r car efu l re vi ew, we ag ree t ha t Roo ker -Feldma n pre ve nt edth e d is tri ct
co urt fr om

ass um in g ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e cl ai m s t ha t the co urt i de nt ifi edin it s di sm is sa l o rd er as ba rredby the do ctrin e. Ru li ng on th os e cl ai m s wo ul d
ne ces sa ril y

ha ve requi redth e co urt t o d et erm in e th atth e Fl or id a st at e co urts
wro ng ly deci de d t he is su es be fo re the m in Man ni ng ’s pri orsu it . Man ni ng ’s
as se rti on th at , witho utreco ur se to fed eral co urts , he wo ul d b e d ep riv edof ave nu e in whi chto airhi s co ns ti tu ti on al gri ev an ces m is un de rs ta nd s the na tu re o f ou r du al syste m of c ou rts . AndMan ni ng ’s app eal do es no t p res en t an irr eco nc il ab le
co nf li ctbe twee n v in di cat io n o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d ju ris di ct io na l d oc tri ne . If Ma nn in g b el ie ve d tha t the st at e jud ge s wer e b ia se d i n t he ir rul in gs ag ai ns t h im , he ha d the op ti on to ap pe al th os e ru li ng s t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt an d, fr om th ere, t o the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. Ma nn in g’s b el ie f th atdo in g s o
wou ldha ve be enfut il e is im m at eri al . He cho se no t t o t ak e fu ll adva nt ag e o f
rev ie w inFlo rid a’s co urts an d m ay no t n ow at ta ckin th e fed eral co urts adve rs e 7st at e co urt ru li ng s as un co ns ti tu ti on al ly bia se d.

Yet, al th ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y id en ti fie d s ev eral cla im s o ve r whi chitlac ke d juris di ct io n a s a r es ul t o f Roo ker -Feldma n , th e co urt’s l is t was
un de rin cl us iv e. “ Whe re d is m is sa l ca n b e b as edon lac k o f subjec t m at te r 4 juri sd ic ti on an d fa il ur e to st at e a cl ai m , th e co urt s ho ul d d is m is s o n o nl y th e juri sd ic ti on al gro un ds .” Bod a v . Uni te d Sta tes , 69 8 F .2d11 74 , 11 77 n.4 (11 th Cir
. 19 83 ). Even th ou gh th e res ul ts are fu nc ti on al ly sim il ar, the di st ric t co urt erredin di sm is si ng so m e o f Man ni ng ’s cla im s b as edup on jud ic ia l i m m un it y be cau se th e
co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to reac h t he is su e o f imm un it y . It i s n eces sa ry , th eref or e, fo r us to va cat e th e d is m is sa l o f th os e cl ai m s an d re m an d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o di sm is s t he m

forlac k o f juri sd ic ti onrathe r th anforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . Se e DiMa io v. Democ ra ti c Na t’l Co mm. , 52 0 F .3d12 99 , 13 03 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). Inad di ti on to th os e cl ai m s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y id en ti fie d, t he di st ric t co urt was als o p recl ud edfro m co ns id eri ng Man ni ng ’s du e p ro ces s cl ai m s
The a ppellees a rgue that we should remand this ca se to permit the district cour t to 4 dismiss it in toto for lac k of subject- matter jurisdiction bec ause a ll of Manning ’s claims ar e barr ed by the Rooke r - Feldman doctrine. B eca use Manningseeks only

damag es and none of the alleg ed due pr ocess violations asser ted in Manning ’s complaint could have resulted in any compensa ble injury , they

argue, the district cour

t’s deter mination that it had jurisdiction over some of Manning ’s claims wa s err oneous. We disagree . It is well established that courts may awa rd nominal damag es for

due proc ess violations even whe re no a ctual injury occur red. See DA Mortg., Inc. v . City of Miami Beach , 486 F.3d 1254, 1259- 60 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus, eve n assuming none of the violations that Manningalleg ed could have re sulted in an ac tual injury , that would not have diveste d the district court of jur isdiction. 8ba se d o n: (1) Ju dg e Me tz ge r’s refu sa l t o re co ns id er h er o rd er awar di ng fees

ag ai ns t M an ni ng ; (2 ) th e ap pe ll at e jud ge s’ det erm in at io n t ha t the y ha d n ot
rece iv eda se tt le d re co rd ; (3 ) Ju dg e Ro be rts ’s rul in g t ha t h er o rd er d idno t h av e to be si gn ed ; an d (4 ) Ju dg e Ro be rts ’s dec is io n t ha t i t was no t i m pr op er fo r he r or de r to be writ te n o n t he op po si ng lawyer’ s s ta ti on ary. In e ach in st an ce, the di st ric t
co urt co ul d o nl y

ha ve de ci de d t ha t t he se jud ic ia l ac ti on s v io la te d M an ni ng ’s du e pr oc es s ri gh ts by hol di ng th atth e Fl or id a jud ge s wro ng ly deci de d t he is su es be fo re th em or i nv al id at in g the ir r

ul in gs . For t ha t re as on , th e d is tri ctco urt l ack ed
subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ov er tho se cla im s, an d we r em an d wi th in stru ct io ns th at th ey be di sm is se d o n t ha t b as is
. Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y di sm is se d a s b arre d b y

jud ic ia l i m

m un it y al l o f Man ni ng ’s rem ai ni ng cla im s. “ Ju dg es are en ti tl edto ab so lu te jud ic ia l imm un it y fro m da m ag es forth os e act s t ak enwhi le th ey are ac ti ng in th ei r jud ic ia l cap aci ty unl es s t he y

act edin th e ‘clearab se nc e o f al l ju ris di ct io n.’” Bol in v. St or y , 22 5 F .3d12 34 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (quo ti ng St ump v. Sp arkma n , 43 5 U.S. 3 49 , 35 6– 57 (19 78 )). “ Thi s i m m un ity ap pl ie s ev enwhenth e jud ge ’s act s ar e inerro r,
m al ic io us , or wer e in ex ces s o f hi s o r he r juri sd ic ti on .” Id

. “ Whe th er a ju dg e’s act io ns were m ad e whi le act in g i n h is jud ic ia l capa ci ty dep en ds on whet he r: (1 ) th e actco m

pl ai ne d o f co ns ti tu te d ano rm al jud ic ia l fu nc ti on ; (2 ) th e ev en ts
9oc cu rredin th e jud ge ’s cha m be rs or i n o pe n c ou rt; (3) th e co nt ro ve rs y in vo lv eda
cas e p en di ng be fo re the jud ge ; an d (4 ) th e co nf ro nt at io n aro se imm ed ia te ly outof
a v is itto th e jud ge in hi s ju di ci al cap aci ty.” Si bl ey v. La ndo , 43 7 F .3d10 67 , 10 70 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. Man ni ng co nt en ds th atth e jud ge s wer e n otact in g i n t he ir ju di ci al cap aci ti es
an d t ha t t he is su e o f imm un it y sh ou ldha ve be ensubm it te d t o ajury. But 5

“ jud ic ia l i m

m un it y is animm

un it y fro m su it , no t ju stfro m

ul ti m at e as se ss m en t o f da m ag es ,” Mir el es v. W

ac o , 50 2 U.S. 9 , 11 (19 91 ), an d, ac co rd in gl y , th e Supr em e Co urt h as urg edth ata de fen da nt ’s ent it le m en t t o i m m un it y be res ol ve d “ atth e earl ie stpo ss ib le st ag e in li ti ga ti on ,” Hun te r v. Br ya nt , 50 2 U.S. 2 24 , 22 7 (1 99 1)
. As t he di st ric t co urt d et erm in edhe re, the jud ge s’ imm un it y was app aren t fr om

th e factof the co m

pl ai nt . Man ni ng als o a rg ue s t ha t the jud ge s wer e act in g “ on th ei r
own ag en da ,” an d t hu s, i n h is vi ew, were n otpro pe rly perf orm in g t he ir ju di ci al du ti es . ButMan ni ng ’s all eg at io ns are b as edeit he r on th e ru li ng s o r act io ns in op enco urt o f th e jud ge s wh o d eci de d t he cas e th atMan ni ng bro ug htin th e Fl or id a
co urts . Tho se act io ns were p la in ly “ jud ic ia l i n n atur e.” Mir el es , 50 2 U.S. at12
. Manningalso arg

ues that the district cour

t’s dismiss al of his complaint depr ived him of 5 his Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury . This contention is meritless. As we have re cently explained, we ar e not at liberty to decide that dismi ssal of cla ims that fail as a matter of law violates the Seventh Ame ndment and we would not, in any event, make such a de cision. Zivojinovich v. Barner , 525 F.3d 1059, 1066 ( 11th Cir. 2008) 10Anditis irr el ev an t wh ethe r Man ni ng is co rrec t t ha t t ho se act io ns were u nf ai r or in vo lv ederro ne ou s i nt erp ret at io ns of F lo rid a la w or t he fact s o f hi s ca se . The jud ge s’ act io ns were n otun de rta ke n i n t he ab se nc e o f al l ju ris di ct io n. Ra th er, each act io n t ha t M an ni ng ch al le ng es oc cu rredin th e co nt ex t o f pr es id in g o ve r a
cas e in whi ch Man ni ng ha d i nv ok edth e jud ge s’ juri sd ic ti on by fili ng an d p ur su in g hi s s ta te co urt l aws ui t. Se e id

. at 1 2- 13
. IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d is m is s M an ni ng ’s app eal as i t re la te s t o a ny of hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he Est at e o f Ju dg e Dav idHarp er. Fu rth er, we aff irm th e di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n o f th os e cl ai m s t o wh ic h t he co urt de te rm in edth at Roo ker -Feldma n ap pl ie d. We vac at e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l of th e fo ll owi ng cla im s o n t he m eri ts an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns th atth ey be di sm is se d fo r la ckof s ub

ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on : (1 ) Ju dg e Me tz ge r’s refu sa l t o
reco ns id er h er o rd er awar di ng att orne y s’ fees ; (2 ) th e d et erm in at io n o f th e ap pe ll at e jud ge s tha t t he y ha d n otrece iv eda se tt le d re co rd ; (3 ) Ju dg e Ro be rts ’s
ru li ng th athe r or de r di d n otha ve to be si gn ed ; an d (4 ) Ju dg e Ro be rts ’s rul in g t ha t he r or de r was no t i ll eg it im at e b ecau se itwas p rin te d o n t he op po si ng co un se l’s st at io na ry . Fin al ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f al l o f Man ni ng ’s
rem ai ni ng cla im s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m ba se d o n abs ol ut e jud ic ia l i m m un it y . 11DISMI SSED in pa rt, AFFIRMED in pa rt, a nd VACATED AND

REMANDED in part.

12