Court Opinion

ID: 9915355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 15:01:32.599593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:33.110955
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13971   Document: 44-1    Date Filed: 01/05/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13971
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       WENDELL TERRY LOCKE,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       CHARLES CANADY,
       Justice,
       RICKY POLSTON,
       Justice,
       JORGE LABARGA,
       Justice,
       ALAN LAWSON,
       Justice,
       CHIEF JUSTICE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-13971    Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2024   Page: 2 of 6

       2                     Opinion of the Court               22-13971

                                                  Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00116-AW-MAF
                          ____________________

       Before GRANT, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Wendell Locke appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
       § 1983 suit against the Justices and Clerk of the Florida Supreme
       Court. Because he abandoned any claim against the Clerk, and
       because his claims against the Justices are barred by the Eleventh
       Amendment, we affirm.
                                       I.
              On March 1, 2022, following a lengthy investigation, the
       Florida Supreme Court suspended appellant Wendell Locke from
       the practice of law for one year and ordered a taxation of costs.
       Locke’s suspension was to be effective on March 31, 2022, whether
       or not he filed a motion for rehearing. And that’s precisely what
       he did, petitioning for rehearing on March 16. On the same day,
       Locke filed this § 1983 suit against the Justices and Clerk of the
       Florida Supreme Court.
USCA11 Case: 22-13971      Document: 44-1       Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 3 of 6

       22-13971                Opinion of the Court                          3

               In this suit, Locke challenges the suspension order on several
       grounds. He claims that he was denied due process and equal
       protection of the law during the state proceedings and that the
       defendants initiated the investigation in retaliation for
       constitutionally protected speech. As a result of those asserted
       violations, he prays for this Court to enter an order “declaring the
       March 1, 2022, Order null and void” and “enjoining the [Justices
       and Clerk] from enforcing the sanctions of suspension and taxing
       of costs.” More generally, because the suspension order was not
       final at the time of suit, Locke asks this Court to prevent the Justices
       and Clerk from “admonishing, reprimanding, suspending,
       disbarring or otherwise disciplining” him.
              Locke admits that he raised similar constitutional challenges
       to the Florida Supreme Court. In fact, the Florida court rejected
       the very same due process and equal protection challenges that he
       reasserts in federal court. Locke’s only novel claim is his First
       Amendment retaliation argument. The district court dismissed his
       claims against the Clerk for lack of standing, and dismissed his
       remaining claims against the Justices because of judicial immunity
       and the Eleventh Amendment. This is his appeal.
                                         II.
               We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to
       dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
       Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2022). Likewise, this Court
       reviews the grant of immunity de novo. Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d
       1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001).
USCA11 Case: 22-13971         Document: 44-1         Date Filed: 01/05/2024          Page: 4 of 6

       4                          Opinion of the Court                        22-13971

             An appellant forfeits any argument not briefed on appeal,
       made in passing, or raised briefly without supporting arguments or
       authority. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–
       82 (11th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); see also United States v.
       Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
                                             III.
               At the outset, we note that Locke does not challenge the
       district court’s conclusion that he lacked standing to pursue his
       claims against the Clerk. He has thus forfeited any challenge to
       that decision, and we do not disturb the district court’s conclusion.
       See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82.
              Locke’s remaining claims against the Justices are precluded
       by the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits against the State of
       Florida and its agencies—here, the Justices. 1 Summit Med. Assocs.,

       1 The Justices assert that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine also strips this Court of

       jurisdiction to hear Locke’s claims. Rooker–Feldman is a “narrow and limited
       doctrine” that precludes federal district courts from reviewing or rejecting
       state-court judgments rendered before the district court litigation began. Behr
       v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1212–13 (11th Cir. 2021). For it to apply, the relevant
       state-court proceedings must have ended at the time of the federal suit.
       Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1274–75 (11th Cir. 2009). Here, Locke moved
       the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration on the same day he filed this
       § 1983 suit, preventing the state proceedings from ending. Rooker–Feldman
       does not apply. To be sure, because the state court subsequently rejected
       some of Locke’s constitutional claims, preclusion law may still bar his claims.
       Behr, 8 F.4th at 1210. But that is “separate and distinct from Rooker–Feldman’s
       jurisdictional prohibition.” Id. And it can only be addressed after resolving
       other threshold jurisdictional issues, including immunity. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
       8(c)(1).
USCA11 Case: 22-13971      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 5 of 6

       22-13971               Opinion of the Court                          5

       P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F.3d 1326, 1336–37 (11th Cir. 1999). A narrow
       exception exists, however, under Ex Parte Young, for “suits against
       state officers seeking prospective equitable relief to end continuing
       violations of federal law.” Id. at 1336; see Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S.
       123 (1908). But the Ex parte Young doctrine applies “only to ongoing
       and continuous violations of federal law”—a plaintiff “may not use
       the doctrine to adjudicate the legality of past conduct.” Summit
       Med. Assocs., 180 F.3d at 1337 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
       277–78 (1986)). So when determining whether a suit falls within
       this exception, we need only conduct a “straightforward inquiry
       into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of
       federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.”
       Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635,
       645 (2002) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
              That standard is not satisfied here, so Ex parte Young does not
       help Locke avoid the Eleventh Amendment bar. On May 16, 2022,
       the Florida Supreme Court denied Locke’s petition for rehearing.
       Florida Bar v. Locke, No. SC19-1913, 2022 WL 1533436 (Fla. May 16,
       2022). Locke’s one-year suspension from practicing law—which
       began on March 31, 2022—has thus ended. The end of the
       suspension proceedings, and the end of the suspension itself, also
       ended any ongoing constitutional violation. The asserted
       violations occurred entirely in the issuance of the suspension order
       or the events leading up to it. Locke argues that he was denied due
       process and equal protection of the laws during the disciplinary
       proceedings (for various reasons), and the initiation of the
       proceedings was an unconstitutional retaliation against protected
USCA11 Case: 22-13971      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13971

       speech. None of these claims allege an ongoing or continuing
       violation of federal law; all asserted violations ended when the state
       proceedings ended. See Summit Med. Assocs., 180 F.3d at 1336–37.
              Ex parte Young applies only in “cases in which the relief
       against the state official directly ends the violation of federal law.”
       Florida Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Health &
       Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1219 (11th Cir. 2000). None of Locke’s
       requested relief would remedy whatever constitutional violations
       (if any) occurred during or as a result of the suspension
       proceedings. The Eleventh Amendment thus strips this Court of
       subject matter jurisdiction over Locke’s claims against the Justices.
       See S&M Brands, Inc. v. Georgia, 925 F.3d 1198, 1204 (11th Cir. 2019).
                                  *      *       *
             Locke has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s
       conclusion that he lacks standing to sue the Clerk. And his claims
       against the Justices are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
       Accordingly, we AFFIRM.