Opinion ID: 3063350
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

Text: An appellant, even when proceeding pro se, abandons an issue if he fails to raise it in his initial brief. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 74 (2008). We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). The complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and all of the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded facts are accepted as true. Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 2007). The district court should consider only the pleadings and the exhibits 3 attached thereto. Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000). Further, “[i]n the case of a pro se action . . . the court should construe the complaint more liberally than it would formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990). In addition, we review a district court’s decision to abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971) for an abuse of discretion. See Wexler v. Lepore, 385 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2004). A. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Damages Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1. Defendants Lester and Galluzzo “Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). “Whether a judge's actions were made while acting in his judicial capacity depends on whether: (1) the act complained of constituted a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge's chambers or in open court; (3) the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and (4) the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity.” Id. 4 Plaintiffs’ allegations against Judges Lester and Galluzzo are based on orders issued by the defendants, including custody orders and orders expelling Plaintiffs from the courtroom. Plaintiffs allege that these events arose out of cases pending before Judges Lester and Galluzzo. Issuing custody orders and expelling individuals from a courtroom are normal judicial functions. In this case, it is clear that Plaintiffs were dealing with Judges Lester and Galluzzo in their judicial capacity and that the complained of orders were issued in the defendants’ judicial capacity. Because the defendants were acting in their judicial capacity, they are entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the § 1983 claims against these defendants. 2. Defendants Morse, Dew, Tricomi, Phipps, Eslinger, Amin, Clem, Hess, Ochs, Nelson, and Gosh “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Andujar v. Rodriguez, 486 F.3d 1199, 1202 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and internal quotation marks omitted). “An official asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity must initially establish that he was 5 acting within his discretionary authority.” Skop v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir. 2007). “If the official was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority . . . the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 1136-37. “To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff . . . must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004). When dealing with claims of qualified immunity, plaintiffs are required to allege facts that would defeat the claim of qualified immunity with “some specificity.” GJR Invs. Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs allege that these defendant were employed by the state. Moreover, the specific allegations against these defendants all concern actions they took within their discretion as state employees. Therefore, Plaintiffs are required to show that these defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to defeat the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. Plaintiffs have not met this burden. While Plaintiffs generally assert that these defendants’ actions violated equal protection and due process, they fail to articulate what specific rights these defendants violated or to explain how these defendants violated those 6 rights. In this case, Plaintiffs fail to allege with any specificity facts indicating that these defendants violated a constitutional right, let alone a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the § 1983 claims against these defendants based on qualified immunity. 3. Defendants Smith, DeLeon, Lerner, and the Gorenflos “In order to prevail on an action under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.” Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). “Only in rare circumstances can a private party be viewed as a ‘state actor’ for section 1983 purposes.” Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1130 (11th Cir. 1992). In deciding whether a private party can be viewed as a state actor, we look to see whether any of three conditions are met: (1) the State has coerced or at least significantly encouraged the action alleged to violate the Constitution (“State compulsion test”); (2) the private parties performed a public function that was traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State (“public function test”); or (3) the State had so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the [private parties] that it was a joint participant in the enterprise[] (“nexus/joint action test”). Rayburn ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). Plaintiffs do not allege that any of these defendants are state actors. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts indicating (1) that the state coerced or 7 encouraged these defendants to violate the Constitution, (2) that these defendants performed a public function, or (3) that these defendants are engaged in an interdependent relationship with the state such that they participated in a joint enterprise. Because Plaintiffs have not alleged facts indicating that any of these defendants were state actors, the district court did not err in dismissing the § 1983 claims against these defendants. 4. Defendants Bolar, Gardner, and Spaziano Plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not allege that these defendants performed any acts in connection with the alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Plaintiffs list these defendants in their complaint but fail to allege what actions they performed, what constitutional rights they violated, or how they violated those rights. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the § 1983 claims against these defendants. B. Younger Abstention “Under [Younger] and its progeny, federal district courts must refrain from enjoining pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances.” Old Republic Union Ins. Co. v. Tillis Trucking Co., 124 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997). “Although Younger concerned state criminal proceedings, its principles are 8 fully applicable to noncriminal judicial proceedings when important state interests are involved.” 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). A court may abstain from granting injunctive relief under Younger where: (1) the state proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates an important state interest; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge in the state court proceedings. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 2521 (1982). The Supreme Court has recognized, in the context of Younger abstention, that family relations and child welfare are important states interests. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435, 99 S. Ct. 2371, 2383 (1979) (“Family relations are a traditional area of state concern.”). Moreover, a federal court should assume that state procedures offer an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional issues, absent unambiguous authority indicating otherwise. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1279. After reviewing the state court docket, the district court concluded that state court proceedings were still ongoing at the time Plaintiffs filed their complaint. Plaintiffs do not challenge this finding on appeal. Therefore, the first Middlesex factor is applicable. Plaintiffs allege that their case arose primarily from a custody disputes involving allegations of child abuse. Because family relations and matters 9 of child custody are important state interests, the second Middlesex factor is satisfied. Considering the final Middlesex factor, Plaintiffs did not allege any facts indicating they that were precluded from raising their constitutional concerns in the state court proceedings. Therefore, the district court was justified in assuming that state procedures offer an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional issues. See id. Because all of the Middlesex factors are implicated in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining under Younger.1 C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1984 Sections 1 and 2 of § 1984 were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 25-26, 3 S. Ct. 18, 32 (1883). The remaining sections were repealed by Congress in 1948. See Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 21, 62 Stat. 862. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims under § 1984. D. Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985-1986 1 We note that it is unclear whether Plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin state court proceedings concerning the real estate dispute between Plaintiffs Taylor and Fox and Defendants Spaziano and Lerner. To the extent such relief was requested, it is unclear whether Younger would apply because Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to determine whether the dispute implicated important state interests. Nonetheless, any claim for injunctive relief regarding the real estate dispute would be properly dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts indicating the constitutional rights violated or how those rights were violated. 10 “The elements of a cause of action under § 1985(3) are: (1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted). Moreover, a plaintiff must show that the defendants were motivated by racial or class-based “invidiously discriminatory animus.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S. Ct. 1790, 1798 (1971). Section 1986 conspiracy claims are “derivative of § 1985 violations.” Park v. City of Atlanta, 120 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 1997). Because Plaintiffs failed to allege that they are members of a protected class or that the defendants were motivated by racial or class-based “invidiously discriminatory animus,” Plaintiffs’ § 1985 claims must fail. Because § 1986 claims are derivative of § 1985 claims, Plaintiffs’ § 1986 claims must fail as well. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing those claims. E. Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 4 U.S.C. §§ 101-102 These statutes, relating to oath requirements for certain state officials, do not 11 create a private cause of action. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing those claims. F. Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241-242, and 2382-2383 Criminal statutes generally do not provide a private cause of action. See Love v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F.3d 1347, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 2002). Because these are all criminal statutes, the district court did not err in dismissing those claims. G. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Breach of Agreement Plaintiffs appear to allege that certain defendants violated the divorce decree and marital settlement between Plaintiff Chen and Defendant DeLeon. This agreement was reduced to an order of the family court. In effect, Plaintiffs request that the district court enforce an order entered by the state court. Because it would have been improper for the district court to grant such relief, the district court did not err in dismissing those claims. H. Plaintiff’s Claims for Violation of Fla. Stat. § 39.0132 This statute governs the state’s maintenance of certain records. It appears to be designed for the protection of the public, and nothing indicates that it creates a 12 private cause of action. See Love, 310 F.3d at 1352-53. Because the statute does not create a private cause of action, the district court did not err in dismissing those claims. I. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Violation of Fifth Amendment Because Plaintiffs did not allege that any defendants were federal officials, claims brought under the Fifth Amendment were properly dismissed. See Riley v. Camp, 130 F.3d 958, 972 n.19 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The Fifth Amendment obviously does not apply here–the acts complained of were committed by state rather than federal officials.”). To the extent that these claims could be construed as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Porter v. White, 483 F.3d 1294, 1297 n.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (referring to party’s Fifth Amendment claims against non-federal officials as claims under the Fourteenth Amendment), the claims would be properly dismissed for the reasons already discussed. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing those claims. It is somewhat unclear whether Appellants raise the merits of the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss as an issue on appeal. As discussed, the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds enumerated in its order. Thus, to the extent that Appellants raise this 13 issue, we conclude that it lacks merit.