Opinion ID: 43786
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: The justices contend that they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suit for damages. The law is well-settled that judges are indeed entitled to immunity from suit for damages when acting in their judicial capacity unless they act in the 3 “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000). Supreme Court justices are acting within their jurisdiction when they choose to deny writs of certiorari. The district court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the claims for monetary damages based on judicial immunity. The defendant courts contend that they are entitled to immunity from Sibley’s claim for injunctive relief. Litigants may seek injunctive relief for violation of their federal constitutional rights by state judges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984). Furthermore, § 1983 has been applied to federal actors under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Section 1983 provides, however, that “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute thus limits Sibley’s injunctive remedy to declaratory relief. In Bolin, we held that a similar plaintiff was not eligible for declaratory relief because he had an adequate remedy at law—namely, the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals and to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. Bolin, 255 F.3d at 1243. Sibley enjoyed a similar remedy at law, and thus his claim for injunctive relief must also fail. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 4