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-35-MP-GRJ

DAVID GLANT,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Form, Plaintiff names David Glant, a Circuit Judge for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, as the

Defendant. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff challenges Judge Glant’s alleged failure to appoint

counsel to represent the Plaintiff in a pending state criminal case after the state public

defender notified Plaintiff that the public defender had a conflict of interest. According

to Plaintiff, he was arrested on January 18, 2011 on false charges of tampering with a

witness. Id. Judge Glant appointed a state public defender to represent Plaintiff.

However, the public defender notified Plaintiff that it was required to withdraw as

counsel because of a conflict. Plaintiff states that he has been in jail for 49 days

without being contacted by another attorney and without having been charged with a

crime. Plaintiff contends that Judge Glant could have addressed his case during a court

appearance scheduled for March 2, 2011. Plaintiff contends that Judge Glant’s failure

to address his case and delay in appointing another lawyer to represent Plaintiff violates

his rights under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Case 1:11-cv-00035-MP-GRJ Document 6 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Constitution.

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

2000) (internal citations omitted). While there are a number of reasons Plaintiff’s

allegations fail to state a claim for a relief, the Court need not address the substance of

Plaintiff’s claim because it is evident that the conduct about which Plaintiff complains

involves the Defendant’s actions or inaction as a Circuit Judge during the performance

of his judicial duties in 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

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-35-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00035-MP-GRJ Document 6 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

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

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-35-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00035-MP-GRJ Document 6 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 3