### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 29, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 05- 12678 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 1 7 2 8 - C V- AJ M O N T G O M E R Y B L A I R S I B L E Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M A X I N E C O H E N L A N D O , A L A N R . S C H W A R T Z , M A R I O P . G O D E R I C H , 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 r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 29, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:B y judic ial de c re e , Sibley

ha s b e e n b arre d f

ro m se lf -repre sentatio n in

F lorida state 1 c ourt s a s a

re sult o f h is v e xati ou s li tig atio n. Se eSib ley v. Sib ley , 8 85 So. 2d

98 0, 98 8 ( F la . D ist . Ct. App. 20 04 ). Sib ley

se e ms unf

azed by sa nc tio ns a g ains t hi s p e rs on , s o th eF lorida c ourt s de c ide d th at hi s f

rivo lou s suits c ould c ontin ueon ly if Sib ley c ould c onvin c eano ther l awye r t o take his ca se. I d. Sibley

also has a history

of abusive litig ation in federal c ourts. See Sibley v. Wil son, 2004 U.S. Dist. 22205 (S.D. Fla. 2004) ( listi ngcase s). The latest of these w as to sue the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, in their individual capacities, for denying c ertiora ri in his case. SeeSibley

v. United States Supreme Court, 136 F . App’x 252 (11th Ci r. 2005). A simil ar remedy

to that employed in Florida cour ts might be a

ppropriate , upon motion to a district 2 M o n tg o m e r y B la irS ib le y a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is s ta te t ortand federa l ci vi l ri gh t s c l ai m s a gai nstJudg e M axi ne C oh en L ando , Judg e A l an R . S c hw a r t z , a nd J udge M a r i o P . G ode r i c h a s w e l l a s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of h i s m o t i o n t o am en d h i s co m p l ai n t . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i sm i ssed th e cl ai m s b ecau se s ta te a n d f

e d e r a l ju d ic ia l im m u n ity p r e v e n ts th e c o lla te r a l r e v ie w h e s e e k s , a n d it deni ed the m ot i on t o am end b ec ause the change w ou l d n othave cre at ed cl ai m s that c o u l d s u r v i v e th e j u d i c i a l i m m u n i ty d e f e n s e . We A F F I R M.

I . B AC KG RO UN D I n the unde r l y i ng s t a t e c our ta c t i on, w hi c h w e e xpr e s s l y do notr e vi e w f or th e s u b s ta n c e o f

its d e c is io n , S ib le y w a s c o n f in e d f o rf a ilu r e to p a y c h ild s u p p o r t in the a m ountof

$100, 000. S e e S i bl e y v. S i bl e y , 833 S o. 2d 847 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ). C o n t i n u i n g w h ath as b eco m e a m u l t i -h ead ed l ev i ath an o f m eri t l ess l i t i ga t i on, S i bl e y s ue d hi s tr i a l a nd a ppe l l a t e s t a t e c our tj udge s i n f e de r a l c our ton st at e a nd fe dera l ca uses of ac t i on for $10 m i l l i on ea ch. T he di stri ctcourt 1c ourt , g iven Sibley ’s his tor y of ve xati ou s li tig atio n. This c ourt ha s enf orc e d s imi lar s anc tio ns in the past. See, e .g ., Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1386- 87 (11th Cir. 1993).

3 di sm i ss ed, beca use, gi ven t he defense of j ud i ci al i m m un i ty, S i bl ey fa i l ed t o st at e a c l a i m. O n app ea l , S i bl ey ar gu es thatJudg e L ando w as no tent i t l ed t o j ud i ci al i m m u n i ty as t o th e st at e l aw cl ai m s o f u n l aw fu l i m p ri so n m en t , b ecau se sh e h ad l o st j ur i s di c t i on ove rhi s c a s e w he n he f i l e d s e ve n a f

f i da vi t s s e e ki ng he rr e c us a l , a nd h e rs u b s e q u e n t in c a r c e r a tio n o f h im w a s , th e r e f

o r e , u n la w f

u l. S ib le y a s s e r ts th a t, unde rF l a . S t a t . § 38. 10, a l i t i ga ntne e d onl y f i l e a n a f f i da vi ts t a t i ng tha the f

e a r s he w i l l no tre ce i ve a f

ai r tri al i n o rdert o b ara j ud ge fr om proceedi ng . H e f i l ed se ven s uc h m ot i ons a nd a f

f i da vi t s , w hi c h he a r gue s ba r r e d J udge L a ndo f r om pr oc e e di ng in h is c a s e a n d r e n d e r in g a ju d ic ia l im m u n ity d e f e n s e u n a v a ila b le to h e r . I n h is e ig h th c la im , S ib le y r e ite r a te s th a t J u d g e L a n d o lo s t ju r is d ic tio n w h e n s h e f a ile d to rul e on one of

hi s m ot i ons t o di s qua l i f y . S i bl e y c ont e nds tha t , be c a us e J udge L a n d o e x c e e d e d h e rju r is d ic tio n , s h e is in e lig ib le f o rju d ic ia l im m u n ity f

r o m h is § 1 9 8 3 c la im s . A s to J u d g e s S c h w a r tz a n d G o d e r ic h , S ib le y a r g u e s th a t th e s e a p p e lla te j ud ges a ct ed i n t he com pl et e absence of j uri sdi ct i on . S i bl ey al so cont ends that J udge s S c hw a r t z a nd G ode r i c h c om m i t t e d “ non- j udi c i a l ” a c t s out s i de the s c ope of thei r j uri sdi ct i on by (1) s ol i ci t i ng evi dence duri ng oral ar gu m entou t si de the re cordWe rejec t Sibl ey ’s argument that the failure to plead theaff irmative def

ense of judicial 2 immun ity pre c lude s dism iss a l, b e c a us edis mis sal is availa

ble , a s in thi s c a se , when th ede fens eis an o bv iou s b ar g iven th ea lle g atio ns . Se eMa rs h v . B utl e r C ounty, 2 68 F .3 d 1 01 4, 10 22 (1 1th Cir. 2001) (en ba

nc). 4 on appeal , and (2) “ fabri ca t i ng ” e vi dence notcont ai ned i n t he re cord. S i bl ey a r gue s tha tthe s e a c t i ons vi ol a t e d F l or i da R ul e of A ppe l l a t e P r oc e dur e 9. 200 a nd, th u s , th a t th e ju d g e s w e r e n o t e n title d to ju d ic ia l im m u n ity .
I I . DI S CUS S I ON We r e v i e w m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m d e n o v o , a n d we accep tth e al l eg at i o n s i n th e co m p l ai n tas tru e, co n stru i n g th em i n a l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the pl a i nt i f

f . S pa i n v. B r ow n & W i l l i a m s on T oba c c o C orp. , 363 F . 3d 2 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (ci t i n g F ed . R . C i v . P ro . 1 2 (b )(6 )). M o t i o n s t o d i sm i ss ar e onl y gra nt ed “ w hen t he m ov antdem on stra t es beyond do ub tthatthe pl ai nt i ff ca n p rove no se tof fa ct s i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m w hi ch w ou l d ent i t l e hi m t o rel i ef . ” I d. “ W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of a m ot i on t o a m e nd a c om pl a i ntf ora n a bus e of di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d. ” G r e e n L e a f N ur s e r y v. E . I . D uP ontD e N e m our s & C o. , 341 F .3 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) .

A . Judi ci al Im m un i ty U nd erF eder al L awWe note that this form of appe llate review is unusual. Sibley does not ask us to fix an 3 e rron e ou s st atec ourt

judgment, wh ic h w ec ould n ot do, but rather to a wa rd $1 0 mi lli on

a g ains t e a c h s tatec ourt

judg ewh o p artic ipate d in his c a se s. Th is alignment o f p artie s distinguis he s th is casefrom a c ase wherereview under the Rooker- Fe ldman doctrine w ould be appropriate.

5 “ Ju d g es are en t i t l ed t o ab so l u t e j u d i ci al i m m u n i ty fro m d am ag es fo r th o se a c t s t a ke n w hi l e the y a r e a c t i ng i n the i rj udi c i a l c a pa c i ty unl e s s the y a c t e d i n the

‘ cl ea r absence of al l j uri sdi ct i on . ’ ” B ol i n v . S t ory, 22 5 F . 3d 12 34 , 12 39 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). “ T hi s i m m un i ty app l i es even w hen t he j ud ge’ s a ct s a re i n err or, m al i ci ou s, or w er e i n exces s of hi s or herj uri sdi ct i on . ” I d. W hether a j udge ’ s a c t i ons w e r e m a de w hi l e a c t i ng i n hi s j udi c i a l c a pa c i ty de pe nds on w he the r : ( 1) the a c tc om pl a i ne d of c ons t i tut e d a nor m a l j udi c i a l f unc t i on; ( 2) the ev en t s o ccu rred i n th e j u d g e’ s ch am b ers o r i n o p en co u rt ; (3 ) th e co n tro v ersy i n v o l v ed a case p en d i n g b efo re th e j u d g e; an d (4 ) th e co n fro n t at i o n aro se i m m e di a t e l y outof

a vi s i tt o the j udge i n hi s j udi c i a l c a pa c i ty . S c ot tv. H a y e s , 719 F .2 d 1 5 6 2 , 1 5 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . W e r ej ec t , fr om the ou t se t , the use of § 19 83 as a devi ce for c ol l at er al re vi ew o f s ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n ts . C f . E x x o n M o b ile C o rp . v . S a u d i B a s ic I n d u s . C o rp ., 3

___ U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 15 17 , 15 21 -22 (20 05 ). A s § 19 83 i s app l i ed t o t hi s c as e, there fore , w e do n otas k w hether c i vi l i ncar ce ra t i on w as approp ri at e. T he i nq ui ry i s w he the ror de r i ng c i vi l i nc a r c e r a t i on i s a j udi c i a l a c t i vi ty . S i m i l a r l y , w e do not r e vi e w w he the rthe s ubs t a nc e of a que s t i on a tor a l a r gum e ntw a s i m pr ope r , but6

r a th e r , w h e th e rq u e s tio n s in o r a l a r g u m e n t a r e ju d ic ia l a c ts . S ib le y h a d h is oppor tuni ty t o c ont e s tthe pr opr i e ty of the s e j udge s ’ m e r i t s de c i s i ons i n the appel l at e proces s. S ee S i bl ey v. S i bl ey , 83 3 S o. 2d 84 7 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 20 02 ), r e v ie w d e n ie d , 8 5 4 S o . 2 d 6 6 0 ( F la . 2 0 0 3 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 4 0 U .S . 1 1 0 9 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 1 0 7 4 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . 1. F e de r a l C l a i m s A ga i ns tthe S t a t e T r i a l J udge W i th regard t o S i bl ey ’ s § 19 83 cl ai m s a gai nstJudg e L ando , the di stri ctcourt p ro p erl y co n cl u d ed th atJu d g e L an d o h ad j u d i ci al i m m u n i ty fro m S i b l ey’ s cl ai m s, be c a us e , by i s s ui ng the w r i tof bodi l y a t t a c hm e nt , J udge L a ndo w a s c om m i t t i ng a j udi c i a l a c t . S e e B ol i n, 225 F . 3d a t1239; s e e a l s o P ope v. Q ua t t e l ba um , 884 S o. 2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 1 ( F la . A p p . D is t. C t. 2 0 0 4 ) ( d is c u s s in g a n d a p p ly in g F lo r id a F a m ily L a w R ul e of

P r oc e dur e 12. 615( e ) ’ s w r i tof bodi l y a t t a c hm e ntpr ovi s i on) . T he ju r is d ic tio n a l in q u ir y is a s ta te la w q u e s tio n a n d is d is c u s s e d in s e c tio n B o f th is op i ni on re gardi ng st at e l aw i m m un i ty. B ec ause w e c on cl ud e i n t hatse ct i on that th e r e w a s n o “c le a ra b s e n c e o f ju r is d ic tio n ” a n d b e c a u s e J u d g e L a n d o w a s a c tin g in h e rju d ic ia l c a p a c ity , th e § 1 9 8 3 c la im s a g a in s t J u d g e L a n d o w e r e p r o p e r ly di s m i s s e d.Sibley ’s fa rcic al argument that, beca use an a ppellate judg e aske d a factual question, the 4 proc e e dingwa s trans fo rm e d f ro m an a pp e a l into a

trial is un su

pp or te d in law. Hec ite s n o c a se or statute for

this argument, and wecan f ind none. The a

ppeal to the statedistrict court wa s proc e durally

prop e r, and

that end s o ur

jurisdic tio nal in quir

y . F lorida

Rul eof Appe llate Proc e dure9. 20 0, wh ic h is c ite d b y Sib ley a s a uth oritativ e , d e sc ribe s th ec ontent o f t hea pp e llate rec ord. That r

ule does not provide a

mecha nism whereby

an appe llate cour

t becomes a

trial court in any

circumstance nor

does it provide a r

ubric for removingthe jurisdiction of an a pp e llatec ourt . Sibley argues that it is unjustto allow a judicial immunity defense bec ause heg ets no 5 appellatereview. However, in this very case , he sought reviewin both the Supreme Court of Florida and the United States Supreme Court. Both de clined. See Sibley v. Sibley , 833 So. 2d 84 7 ( F la . D ist . Ct . App . 2 00 2) , re view de nie d, 85 4 So . 2 d 6 60 (F la . 2 00 3) , c e rt . d e nie d, 54 0 U .S. 1109, 124 S. Ct . 1074 (2004). Such a ppeals a re theappropriate re coursefor review of the decisions of state c ourts, and not collateral review in fe deral courts. Cf. Exx on Mobile Corp., 125 S. Ct . at 1522-23 (discussing a ppellate review of

state cour

t case s in the context of the Roo ker- F e ldm an doc trine ); se ea lso Sib ley , 1 36 F . App ’x at 25 2 ( dis c us singSib ley ’s a pp e llate options). Sibley betra ys his desire for

this court to conduct a substantive review of things already decide d when hesug g ests that he re ceive d insufficient a ppellate review. The law of judicial immunity is well settled and does not includean inquiry into the merits of the dec ision. Bolin, 7 2. F eder al C l ai m s A gai nstthe S t at e A pp el l at e J ud ges S i bl e y c ha l l e nge s J udge S c hw a r t z ’ s que s t i on a tor a l a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng the source of fund s use d o n app ea l and t he part i ci pat i on of bo th j ud ges i n an u n f a v o r a b le d e c is io n , b e c a u s e th e o p in io n u s e d a lle g e d ly “f a b r ic a te d ” e v id e n c e . S i bl e y doe s notc ont e s tthe j ur i s di c t i on of the a ppe l l a t e c our tt o he a rhi s c a s e a nd o n ly c o n te n d s th a t th e a c tio n s b y th e ju d g e s w e r e n e ith e rju d ic ia l n o ra p p e lla te in na tur e . B e c a us e a s ki ng que s t i ons a tor a l a r gum e nt s a nd i s s ui ng a de c i s i on i n the

4 f or m of a w r i t t e n opi ni on a r e j udi c i a l a c t i ons a nd be c a us e the j udge s w e r e not ac t i ng i n t he “ cl ea r absence of al l j uri sdi ct i on , ” J ud ges S chw ar t z a nd G od er i ch ar e e n title d to ju d ic ia l im m u n ity f r o m S ib le y ’s c la im s . B o lin , 2 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 9 . 5225 F.3d at 1239 (“This immunity applies even when the judg e’s acts arein error , malicious, or were in excess of his or her jurisdiction.”). We note that, beca

use of the loc ation of her

court in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, the 6 prec edent g overningJudg e L ando’s c onduct is from the Third D istrict of Florida and the F lorida Supreme Court. However, w e dec ide whether immunity applies from the perspe ctive of the Florida Supreme Court. See Mc Mahan v. Toto, 311 F .3d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 2002) (obser ving that it is the duty

of fe deral courts to decidediversity questions as the state’ s intermediateappellatecourts do unless it is clear that the state supreme cour t would decide the casedifferently

). Sibley cites a F lorida Statue and Rule of Judicial Administration for the law that 7 remove d Judg e L ando’s jurisdiction. The statute, which g overns disqualification of a judg e for pre judic e , s tate s: Whenever

a par ty to any action or procee ding makes and f iles an af fidavit stating fea r that he or

she will not rece ive a f

air trial in the c ourt where the suit is pending on a c c ount o f t

hepre judic eof thejudg eof

that c ourt

a g ains t th ea

pp lic ant o r in fav o r o f th e a dv er s e p arty , th e j u dge s h al lp ro ce edn o furth er , b utan o th er j u dge shall be designated in the manner pre scribed by the laws of this state f

or the su bs tit uti on of judg e s f or thetrial of

c a us e s in wh ic h th epre sidingjudg eis disqualified. Fla. Stat. § 38.10. TheFlorida Rules of Judicial Administration, which g overn disqualific ation

8 B . Judi ci al Im m un i ty U nd erS t at e L aw F l or i da c our t s ha ve a dopt e d a doc tr i ne of a bs ol ut e j udi c i a l i m m uni ty a nd h a v e e q u a te d it to th e f

e d e r a l d o c tr in e d is c u s s e d p r e v io u s ly in s e c tio n A o f th is opi ni on. S e e O f

f i c e of the S t a t e A t t or ne y v. P a r r ot i no, 628 S o. 2d 1097, 1099 6 ( F l a . 1993) . T hus , a s i n the f e de r a l s y s t e m , j udge s a r e i m m une f r om s ui tf

or j udi c i a l a c t s “ unl e s s the y c l e a r l y a c tw i thoutj ur i s di c t i on. ” J ohns on v. H a r r i s , 645 S o. 2d 96, 98 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1994) ; s e e a l s o B e r r y v. S t a t e , 400 S o. 2d 80, 83 & n. 3 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1981) ( c i t i ng c a s e s ) . S i bl e y a r gue s tha thi s pe t i t i on f or r e c us a l di ve s t e d J udge L a ndo of j ur i s di c t i on. 7of

trial ju dg e s, state s: Determ inatio n –

Initial Mo tio n. Th ejudg ea g ains t who m an initi a l mo tio n to disqualify . . . is directed shall determine only the leg al suffic iency

of the motion and sh a ll n ot p a ss o n th etr

uth of thefac ts alle g e d. I f t

hemotion

is l e g a lly sufficient, the judgeshall immediately enter an order grantingdisqualification and proce ed no fur

ther in the action. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(f). The F lorida Supreme Court ha s noted that Rule 2.160 g overns the proce ss for judicial disqualification, while § 38.10 controls the substantive right. See Cave v. State, 660 So. 2d 705, 707 (Fla. 1995) . Sibley , however, fails to m ention that this is notthe end of the inquiry . The judg e is not automatically disqualified, but rather must take the f acts a s true and asse ss whether

those “facts alleg ed would plac e a reasona bly prudent person in fea

r of not rec eivinga fair and impartial trial.” B arnhill v. State, 834 So. 2d 836, 843 (Fla. 2002) (quotations omitted). Even though it is clear that this is a ver y deferential standa

rd in favor

of grantingthe litigant’ s first motion for a new judge , this languag e mea ns that the petition for withdrawal does not itself remove jurisdiction. Th estateargue s, in t

hea ltern ativ e , th at juri sdic tio n, fo r pur po se s o f t his qu e sti on , is 8 vested in the trial c ourt and not in a pa rticular judg e, citingKalmanson v. L ockett, 848 So. 2d 37 4, 37 9 ( F la . D ist . Ct . App . 2 00 3) . O n this a rgument, it i s th ec ourt

that ordere d c ivi l incarceration, and as long as the c ourt was properly with jurisdiction, which Sibl ey does not deny, th e n f

ailureto r uleon a motion , which w ould m e re ly a lter which judg esigne d th eorder, is immaterial. 9 S i bl e y ’ s c ont e nt i on w oul d ha ve m e r i tonl y i f the a f f i da vi ts ubm i t t e d t o the c our ta ut om a t i c a l l y de pr i ve d J udge L a ndo of j ur i s di c t i on. I f

the a f f i da vi tdi d not 8 de pr i ve he rof

j ur i s di c t i on, the n J udge ’ s L a ndo w oul d be a bs ol ut e l y i m m une f r om s u it f o rju d ic ia l a c ts . B e c a u s e , a s w e c o n c lu d e d in th e § 1 9 8 3 d is c u s s io n o f th is op i ni on , orderi ng ci vi l i ncar ce ra t i on i s aj ud i ci al ac t , the on l y quest i on i s w hether J udge L a ndo c l e a r l y a c t e d w i thoutj ur i s di c t i on. T he st at e app el l at e c ou rt , w ho se rul i ng s gov ern Jud ge L ando ’ s c ou rt , st at ed th a t a tr ia l ju d g e is n o t a u to m a tic a lly d is q u a lif ie d u n d e rR u le 2 .1 6 0 e v e n if s h e f a ils to ru le o n a d is q u a lif

ic a tio n m o tio n w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f f ilin g . T a r r a n t v . J a c o b o n i,In May 2003, however, the F lorida Supreme Court r uled, in Tablea

u Fine Art Group, 9 Inc. v. Jacoboni, 853 So. 2d 299, 302-03 (Fla . 2003), that a motion to disqualify must be ruled up on wi thin 3 0 d ays o f f

iling . TheF lorida

Sup remeCourt , h ow e ver, de c lin e d tomakethi s rulin gretroac tiv e . I d. at 30 3. Th e re fo re , a statec ourt

judg e ’s failureto r

uleon a motion to disqualify within 30 days, pre- Tablea u, does not take a

way the jurisdiction to rule. See Sibley v. Sibley , 885 So. 2d 980, 983-84 (Fla . Dist. Ct. App. 2004), review denied, 901 So. 2d 120 (Fla . 2005), cert. denied, 04- 1411 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2005); City of Holly wood v. Witt , 868 So. 2d 1214, 1218 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). 10 78 0 S o. 2d 34 4, 34 4-45 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 20 01 ). T hu s, atthe t i m e herrul i ng w as m a d e , J u d g e L a n d o w a s n o t a u to m a tic a lly d is q u a lif ie d b e c a u s e s h e f

a ile d to ru le 9 o n th e m o tio n f

o r3 0 d a y s . W e c o n c lu d e , th e r e f o r e , th a t J u d g e L a n d o d id n o t a c t in a n a b s e n c e o f

ju r is d ic tio n . F u rth er m o re , after S ib ley f il ed th e f irst af fid av itse ek in g Ju d g e L an d o ’s d is q u a lif ic a tio n , J u d g e L a n d o r e ta in e d , a t a b a r e m in im u m , th e ju r is d ic tio n to pe r f or m m i ni s t e r i a l a c t s a nd, the r e f or e , w a s notdi ve s t e d of a l l j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe m at t er. S ee F i sch er v . K n u ck , 4 9 7 S o . 2 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 (F l a. 1 9 8 6 ). A cco rd i n g l y, w he n s he i s s ue d the w r i tof bodi l y a t t a c hm e nt, J udge L a ndo m a y ha ve a c t e d i n the e x c e s s o f h e rju r is d ic tio n , b u t s h e d id n o t a c t in th e “c le a ra b s e n c e o f a ll ju r is d ic tio n .” S e e B o lin , 2 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 9 . T h u s , J u d g e L a n d o is e n title d to ju d ic ia l im m u n ity a s to th e s e c la im s . I d . L i kew i se , w i th res pectt o S i bl ey ’ s e i gh th cl ai m thatJudg e L ando ’ s tra nsfe r fr om the F am i l y D i vi si on re sul t ed i n h erl oss of j uri sdi ct i on ov erhi s c as e, her tr a n s f e rf r o m th e F a m ily D iv is io n a n d a ll o f h e rru lin g s S ib le y c h a lle n g e d in h is11

c o m p la in t o c c u r r e d p r io rto th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in T a b le a u . U nd erthe bi nd i ng prec edentre gardi ng F l a. S t at . § 3 8. 10 atthe t i m e, there fore , Judg e L ando re t ai ned j uri sdi ct i on ov erS i bl ey ’ s c as e. S ee T arra nt , 78 0 S o. 2d at 344- 45. T hus , he ri s s ua nc e of a w r i tof bodi l y a t t a c hm e ntw a s a j udi c i a l a c t , a nd s he w a s notope r a t i ng unde ra “ c l e a ra bs e nc e of j ur i s di c t i on. ” S e e B ol i n, 225 F . 3d a t 1 2 3 9 . C . M ot i on T o A m e nd U nd erthe F eder al R ul es , l ea ve t o am end a com pl ai ntthati s r equest ed af t er a resp o n si v e p l ead i n g h as b een fi l ed “ sh al l b e freely gi v en w h en j u st i ce so re q u ires .” F ed . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a ). T h is ru le “sev er ely r es tricts” a d istrict co u rt’s di s c r e t i on t o di s m i s s a c om pl a i ntw i thoutf i r s tgr a nt i ng l e a ve t o a m e nd. B r y a ntv. D up re e, 25 2 F . 3d 11 61 , 11 63 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). N on ethel es s, a di stri ctcourtm ay di sm i ss w hen such am endm entw ou l d b e f ut i l e. Id. “ [W e have] foun d t hatdeni al o f le a v e to a m e n d is ju s tif ie d b y f u tility w h e n th e c o m p la in t a s a m e n d e d is s till s u b je c t to d is m is s a l.” H a ll v . U n ite d I n s . C o . o f A m ., 3 6 7 F .3 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e have hel d t hat , “ [i ] n o rdert o rec ei ve decl ar at ory or i nj un ct i ve re l i ef , pl a i nt i f f s m us te s t a bl i s h tha tthe r e w a s a vi ol a t i on, tha tthe r e i s a s e r i ous r i s k of12

cont i nu i ng i rr epar abl e i nj ury i f the re l i ef i s notgrant ed, and t he abse nce of an a d e q u a te r e m e d y a t la w .” B o lin , 2 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 2 . I n B o lin , w e h e ld th a t a pl ai nt i ff w as i nel i gi bl e f

or decl ar at ory r el i ef

, beca use he had an adequat e r em edy a t la w — s p e c if

ic a lly , th e r ig h t to a p p e a l to th is c o u r t o ru p th e s ta te a p p e lla te c o u r ts a n d to p e titio n th e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o rc e r tio r a r i. I d . a t 1 2 4 3 . S ib le y is in e lig ib le f o re q u i t a b l e r e l i e f

b e c a u s e h e h a d a c c e s s t o th e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s , a r e m e d y a tl a w, a nd, thus , hi s pr opos e d c l a i m f orde c l a r a t or y r e l i e f

a ga i ns tJ udge s S c hw a r t z a nd G o d e r ic h w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u tile . S e e B r y a n t, 2 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 3 . T o t he ext entthatS i bl ey soug htt o am end h i s c om pl ai ntt o i ncorpo ra t e a tr a ns c r i ptof

the he a r i ng dur i ng w hi c h J udge L a ndo i nc a r c e r a t e d hi m , the a ddi t i on of the tra nscr i ptcoul d n othave changed the f ac tthathi s c om pl ai ntfa i l ed t o st at e a c l a i m , be c a us e , a s di s c us s e d he r e i n, J udge L a ndo w a s nota c t i ng i n the a bs e nc e of a l l j ur i s di c t i on, a nd, the r e f or e , ha d j udi c i a l i m m uni ty f r om s ui t . F i na l l y , t o the ext entS i bl ey soug htt o am end h i s c om pl ai ntt o cl ar i fy thathe w i shed t o sue Judg es S c h w a r tz a n d G o d e r ic h in th e irin d iv id u a l c a p a c itie s , s u c h a n a m e n d m e n t w o u ld a ls o b e f u tile , a s b o th ju d g e s w e r e e n title d to ju d ic ia l im m u n ity f r o m s u it in th e ir in d iv id u a l c a p a c itie s . S e e S im m o n s v . C o n g e r , 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 4 - 8 5 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 6 ) ( n o tin g th a t a ju d g e s u e d in h is in d iv id u a l c a p a c ity w a s e n title d to absol ut e j ud i ci al i m m un i ty f rom dam ages i n a § 1 98 3 cas e) . T hu s, the di stri ct13

c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e c lin in g to p e r m it S ib le y to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t b e c a u s e th a t a m e n d m e n t, a s w e ll a s th e o th e rr e q u e s te d a c tio n s , w o u ld be f ut i l e . S e e B r y a nt , 252 F . 3d a t1163.

I I I . CONCL US I ON S i bl e y c om pl a i ne d tha tF l or i da s t a t e j udge s a c t e d w i thoutj ur i s di c t i on a nd thathe dese rves com pensat i on or the op po rtun i ty t o am end h i s c om pl ai ntt o st at e a c l a i m . W e di s a gr e e , be c a us e the j udge s w ho S i bl e y s ue d a r e s hi e l de d f r om a l l the c la im s h e b r o u g h t, a n d a ll th e c la im s h e s o u g h t to b r in g in th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t, b y a b s o lu te ju d ic ia l im m u n ity . C o n s e q u e n tly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c is io n is AF F I RME D.