### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 10 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [D O NO T PU BL IS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 04- 1550 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Dock et No. 0 4- 21 69 8- CV-J LK
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SI BLEY, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES SUPREME COUR T, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, ST EV EN G. BRE YE R, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, ANTHONY KENNED Y, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S out he rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 10, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BI N A a nd KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Sibley later f iled an ame nded complaint which c orre cted a “scr ivener ’s er

ror” in citations 1 in the orig inal complaint. Be cause the amendme nt made no substantive cha ng es, the district court c onsidered a ll of Sibl ey ’s claims whe n it dism issed the ac tion based on its analy sis of the or ig ina l c omp la int . T he re fo re , Si ble y ’s c on te nti on tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in fa ili ngto “ c on sid e r” his a me nd e d c omp la int fa ils
. 2 Plaintiff-Appellan t M ontg om ery Sibley appeals the district court’ s dism issal of his c om pla int a ga ins t the U nit ed

S ta te s C our

t of A ppe al s f

or the E le ve nth Ci rc uit , the U nit e d S t a t e s S up r e m e C o u rt , a n d e a c h o f t h e J u s t i c e s o f t h e S up r e m e C o ur t i n their i n d i v i d u al capacities f or alleged violation s of his rights in a num ber of other le ga l ac tio ns fi le d by Si ble y co nc er nin g a dom es tic dis put e. B ec au se the j ust ic es a nd
c o u rt s a r e e n t i t l e dt o j u d i c i a l i mmu n i t y, w e a f f i rm. I. Fa ct s Si ble y , aF lor ida

a tto rn ey pr oc ee din g pr o se , f

ile d ac om pla int a lle gin g th at

the 1 Suprem e Court violated his righ ts by (1) adopting th e Rooker-F eldm an d octrine, lim iting feder al court reviewof state court decisions; (2) adoptin g the Younger
ab s t e n t i o n d o c t r i n e ; ( 3 ) e n a c t i n g R u l e 1 0 o f t h e R u l e s o f t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s S up r e me Co urt a nd the re by

pla ci ng w ri ts o f ce rt ior ar i w ith in the dis cr et ionof the Co urt; an d (4 ) ign or ing stare de ci sis
. S ibl ey ’ s c om pla int a lle ge d th at

th e Ele ve nth Ci rc uit vio la te d hi s r igh ts b y

( 1) iss uin g unpubl ish ed opi nio ns and ign or ing stare de ci sis ; ( 2)
em plo y ing the Ro oke r- Fe ldm andoc tr ine ; a nd ( 3) e m plo y ing the Y oung er

abst en tio n doc tr ine
. S ibl ey

sou ght de cl ar at or

y r el ie f ag ai nst

both c ourts.3

S i b l e y ’ s c o m

p l a i n t a l s o s o u g h t o n e m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n d a m a g e s a g a i n s t t he ind ivi dua l Ju sti ce s of

the Su pr em e Co urt f

or ( 1) a ct ing out sid e the sc ope of the ir j ur isd ic tio n inde ny ing r ev ie w , ( 2) pe rv er sio n of j ust ic e unde r st at e la w , ( 3)
ne gli ge nc e, a nd ( 4) tr ea son. T he d e f e n d a n t s m o v e dt o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n tu n d e r

F e d e r a l R

u l e o f C ivi l Pr oc ed ur e 12( b) (6 ) fo r fa ilu re to sta te ac la im upo n w hic h r el ie f can be gr an te d. T he defendants argued that they are entitled to j udicial im m unity from suit and th at there
wa s no private r ight o f ac tion for the alleged violatio ns. T he district court found th at j udi ci al im

m uni ty appl ie d a nd d ism iss ed

the c om pla int
. P la intiff fi le d ati m el y ap pe al
. II. St an da rdof R ev ie w W e re vie w de novo a dis tr ic t co urt’ s gr an t of a m oti on to dis m iss und er Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) (6 ), ac ce pti ng the al le ga tio ns in the co m pla int a s tr ue a nd c onstru ing the m in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the pla int if

f. S ha nds T ea ch ing H osp. an d C lin ic s, Inc. v. Be ech St. Corp., 208 F.3d 1308 , 1310 (11th Cir. 2000). II I. A na ly sis T he j ust ic es c ont en d that the y ar e ent itl ed to ab sol ute j udi ci al im

m uni ty f ro m sui t f or da m ag es . T he la w is w el l- se ttl ed tha t j udge s a re ind ee d e nti tle d to im m uni ty fr om sui t f or da m ag es w he n a ct ing in the ir j udi ci al c ap ac ity

unl es s th ey

a ct in the4

“ clear absence of a ll jurisdiction.” B olin v . S to ry, 225 F. 3d 12 34, 1239 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). S upr em e Co urt j ust ic es a re a ct ing w ith in the ir j ur isd ic tio n whe n they c hoos e to d en y w ri ts o f ce rt ior ar i. T he dis tr ic t cour t, the re fo re , did not er

r in d ism iss ing the
c l a i ms f o r mo n e t a ry d a mag e s b a s e do n ju d i c i a l i mm u n i t y. Th e d ef en d an tco u rt s co n t en dt h at th ey ar e en t i t l ed t o i m m u n i t y fr o m

Si b l ey’s cl ai m f or inj unc tiv e re lie f. L iti ga nts m ay se ek inj unc tiv e re lie f fo r vio la tio n of the ir fe de ra l c onst itu tio na l r igh ts b y sta te j udge s un de r 42 U
. S. C. § 1983. Pu lli am v. A lle n, 466 U.S . 522 (1984). F urtherm ore, § 1983 has been applied to federal ac tors und er Bi ve ns v . S ix U nkno w n N am ed A ge nts of Fe de ra l Bu re auof N ar co tic s, 403 U
. S. 388 (1 971)
. S ec tio n 19 83 p ro vid es , ho wev er, tha t “ in any a ct ionbr ough t a ga ins t a ju d i c i a l o f

f i c e r f o r a n a c to r

o mi s s i o n t a k e n i n s u c h o f f i c e r ’s ju d i c i a l c ap a c i t y, inj unc tiv e re lie f sha ll not be gr an te d un le ss a

de cl ar at or

y de cree was vio la te d or d ec l ar at o ry re l i ef

wa s u n av ai l ab l e. ” 4 2 U.S .C
. § 1 9 8 3 . Th e s t at u t e t h u s l i m i t s Si b l ey’s injunctive rem edy

to declaratory

relief
. In Bolin, w e h eld that a si m ilar pl aintiff w as
n o te l i g i b l e f

o r d e c l a r a t o ry r e l i e f b e c au s e h e h a d a n a d e q u a t e r e med y a tl a w
—n a mel y, the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals and to petition the Suprem e Court fo r ce rt ior ar i. B oli n, 255 F. 3d at 1243
. Si ble y e nj oy ed asim ilar re m edy

a t l aw , a nd thu s hi s c la im

f or inj unc tiv e re lie f m

ust a lso f ai l. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s AFF IRM ED.