Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

GREGORY ROLAND,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-34-MP-GRJ

JAMES T. BROWNING,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on the Court’s Civil Rights Complaint

Form, Plaintiff names James T. Browning, a county court judge in Levy County, as the

Defendant. (Doc. 4.) While Plaintiff’s claims are somewhat difficult to decipher, it

appears that Plaintiff challenges Judge Browning’s refusal to reduce Plaintiff’s bond and

imposition of an excessive bond in a state criminal case, which Plaintiff contends

involved a false arrest on illegal drug charges. While the complaint is difficult to

decipher, it is clear that Plaintiff is challenging the decisions of a state judge in a state

criminal case, which is either still pending or concluded. Because the complaint

challenges the conduct of a judge during the performance of his duties in a criminal

case Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant are barred by the doctrine of absolute

judicial immunity.

It is well settled law that judges are “entitled to absolute judicial immunity from

damages for those acts taken while acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in

the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11 Cir. th

Case 1:11-cv-00034-MP-GRJ Document 6 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

2000) (internal citations omitted). Although Plaintiff’s allegations are not entirely clear,

it is evident that the conduct about which Plaintiff complains involved the Defendant’s

actions as a county judge during a pending criminal proceeding. Thus, absolute judicial

immunity applies to all of the Defendant’s judicial actions, even if “the judge’s acts are

in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or her jurisdiction.” Id. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) the Court “shall dismiss the case ... if

the court determines that- the action ... seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief.” Additionally, the screening procedures required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915A provide that “[O]n review .. the court shall dismiss the complaint, if the

complaint [ ] seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 

As such, where as here, suit is brought against a judicial officer who enjoys absolute

immunity, the Court is required to dismiss the case and there is no reason to afford the

litigant a further opportunity to amend, even though the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. 

1

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case should be

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2(B)(ii) because Plaintiff

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. 

IN CHAMBERS, at Gainesville, Florida, this 30 day of June 2011.

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

In the Court’ s February 25, 2011 Order (Doc. 3) the Court already granted Plaintiff an

1

opportunit y to amend.

Case No: 1:11-cv-34-SPM-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00034-MP-GRJ Document 6 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 1:11-cv-34-SPM-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00034-MP-GRJ Document 6 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 3