[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 14-11021; 14-11675

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-60306-MGC

LAURA M. WATSON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION,

RUBEN V. CHAVEZ, 

Co-Special Counsel to the Florida Judicial Qualifications 

Commission, in individual and official capacities, 

MAYANNE DOWNS, 

Member of the Hearing Panel of the Florida Judicial 

Qualifications Commission, in individual and official capacities,

KERRY I. EVANDER, 

Chair of the Hearing Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications 

Commission, in individual and official capacities, 

THOMAS B. FREEMAN, Member of the Investigative Panel of 

the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, in individual and official 

capacities,

et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.
2

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 1, 2015)

Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Laura M. Watson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of 

her motion for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a 

permanent injunction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, in addition 

to its sua sponte dismissal of her complaint raising a claim for declaratory 

judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, claims of procedural and substantive due 

process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law claims of malicious 

prosecution and abuse of process, and a request for injunctive relief. Watson

argues that the district court abused its discretion by applying Younger1 abstention 

to her motion and complaint. The appellees argue that Watson’s claims for 

monetary damages were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

I.

We review the district court’s decision to apply Younger abstention for an 

abuse of discretion. Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 

 1 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).
3

2004). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an inappropriate legal 

standard or fails to follow proper procedures. Id. We review the denial of a 

preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion. 

Horton v. City of St. Augustine, 272 F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir. 2001) (preliminary 

injunction); Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1349 (11th Cir. 2009)

(permanent injunction). Ordinarily, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a 

temporary restraining order unless the appellant can show that irreparable harm 

will result and that the denial can only be effectually challenged by an immediate 

appeal. Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 899-900 (11th Cir. 1995). 

Younger abstention is applicable to noncriminal judicial proceedings that 

vindicate important state interests or are necessary for the state’s judicial system to 

function. 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Younger abstention should only be applied when the federal proceeding will 

intrude on an ongoing state criminal proceeding, a civil enforcement proceeding 

akin to a criminal prosecution, or a civil proceeding involving an order that 

uniquely furthers the state’s ability to perform judicial functions. Sprint 

Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S.Ct. 584, 591-92, 187 L.Ed.2d 505 (2013). Civil 

enforcement actions akin to criminal prosecutions generally are initiated to 

sanction the federal plaintiff for a wrongful act. Id. at 592. A state actor often will 

initiate the action and act as a party. Id. These civil enforcement actions often 
4

involve a formal investigation and a complaint filed at the end of the investigation. 

Id.

For Younger abstention to apply, state judicial proceedings must be ongoing, 

the proceedings must implicate important state interests, and the federal plaintiff 

must have an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in the state 

proceedings. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1274. The first factor is met when a 

state proceeding is ongoing and the relief sought by the plaintiff would interfere 

with the state proceeding. Id. at 1275-76. The plaintiff’s requested relief can 

interfere with the state proceeding if it would disrupt the normal course of action in 

the state proceeding, even if the relief sought would not terminate an ongoing 

proceeding. Id. at 1276.

If the first two factors for Younger abstention are met, the plaintiff has the 

burden to show that the state proceeding will not provide him an adequate remedy 

for his federal claim. Id. at 1279. “A federal court should assume that state 

procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous 

authority to the contrary.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). A plaintiff has an 

adequate remedy for his constitutional claim, for purposes of Younger abstention, 

if he can raise his constitutional claim during the state court’s review of an 

administrative proceeding. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Sch, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 629, 106 S.Ct. 2718, 2724, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986).
5

Exceptions to Younger abstention include bad faith, harassment, or a 

patently invalid state statute. Redner v. Citrus Cnty., 919 F.2d 646, 649 (11th Cir. 

1990). A proceeding is initiated in bad faith if it is brought without a reasonable 

expectation of obtaining a valid conviction. Id. at 650. A state statute may cause 

irreparable injury, justifying an exception to Younger abstention, when it flagrantly 

and patently violates express constitutional prohibitions. Hughes, 377 F.3d at 

1264. Otherwise, extraordinary circumstances may justify an exception to 

Younger abstention when the state court cannot fairly and fully adjudicate the 

constitutional issues and the plaintiff presents “an extraordinarily pressing need for 

immediate federal equitable relief.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124-25, 95 

S.Ct. 1524, 1531, 44 L.Ed.2d 15 (1975). 

As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider her claim that the 

temporary restraining order should have been granted. Ingram, 50 F.3d at 899-

900. Further, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying 

Younger abstention to Watson’s motion. The district court correctly determined 

that this proceeding by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (“FJQC”) 

was a civil proceeding akin to a criminal prosecution because it sought to punish 

Watson for alleged unethical actions, and it was initiated and prosecuted by a state 

actor. Sprint Commc’ns, 134 S.Ct. at 592. Watson does not challenge Florida’s 

interest in preserving the quality of its judiciary, and thus we conclude the FJQC 
6

proceeding furthers an important state interest. Watson also admitted that the 

FJQC proceeding was ongoing at the time of her complaint and motion, and she

did not demonstrate that the FJQC proceeding would not allow Watson to raise her 

constitutional claims. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1274, 1279. Finally, 

Watson did not demonstrate that any of the exceptions to Younger abstention 

applied, nor did she show that extraordinary circumstances existed in her case. 

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising Younger

abstention and denying her motion for injunctive relief. Hughes, 377 F.3d at 1262. 

II.

Younger abstention applies to claims for injunctive relief, as well as claims 

for declaratory judgment that would effectively enjoin state proceedings. Old 

Republic Union Ins. Co. v. Tillis Trucking Co., 124 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 

1997). If Younger abstention applies to a claim for monetary damages, the 

Supreme Court has concluded that a district court can only stay that claim if it

cannot be redressed in the state proceeding, and it has no discretion to dismiss 

those claims. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202, 108 S.Ct. 523, 529, 98 

L.Ed.2d 529 (1988).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Watson’s claims 

for injunctive and declaratory relief, as her request for a declaratory judgment 

would have effectively enjoined the FJQC proceeding by declaring its application 
7

of the Florida Constitution unconstitutional. Old Republic, 124 F.3d at 1261. We 

have indicated that Younger abstention may apply to § 1983 claims raising 

constitutional challenges relating to an ongoing state proceeding. See Doby, 758 

F.2d at 1405-06. Nevertheless, the district court lacked discretion to dismiss 

Watson’s claims for monetary damages under the Younger doctrine because they 

cannot be brought in the FJQC proceeding or the Florida Supreme Court’s review

of that proceeding. Deakins, 484 U.S. at 202, 108 S.Ct. at 529; see also Fla. 

Const. art. V, § 12(a)(1), (c)(1) (granting the FJQC the power to investigate judges 

and to recommend discipline against a judge, and granting the Florida Supreme 

Court the power to review the recommendation and institute discipline).

III.

We review an issue concerning Eleventh Amendment immunity de novo. 

Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 405 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11th 

Cir. 2005). Generally, we will not consider an issue raised for the first time on 

appeal. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 

2004). However, Eleventh Amendment immunity is a jurisdictional question that 

may be raised for the first time on appeal. Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1349 

(11th Cir. 2005).

Eleventh Amendment immunity prevents a plaintiff from suing an 

unconsenting state in federal court. Id. It also bars suits against an arm of the 
8

state. Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A state 

official sued in his official capacity is also immune from suit, but the Eleventh 

Amendment does not shield a state official sued in his individual capacity. 

Jackson v. Ga. Dep’t of Transp., 16 F.3d 1573, 1575 (11th Cir. 1994). Because 

Watson brought her claims against FJQC officials in their individual capacities, the 

Eleventh Amendment does not immunize them from suit. Id. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Watson’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction. We 

also affirm its dismissal of Watson’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. 

We reverse the district court’s dismissal of Watson’s claims against FJQC officials 

in their individual capacities for violations of § 1983, malicious prosecution, abuse 

of process, and punitive damages, and we remand the case. The district court can 

only issue a stay in the proceedings until the resolution of Watson’s FJQC 

proceeding in the Florida Supreme Court. This appeal is AFFIRMED in part, 

REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.2

 2 The parties’ pending motions to supplement the record on appeal are DENIED.