Court Opinion

ID: 9378003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 16:00:53.793093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.807140
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11706      Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 03/09/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                            ____________________

                                   No. 22-11706
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       CHRISTOPHER NICHOLAS KOONCE-HOPE,
                                                        Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       SUZANNE BASS,
       in her official capacity as Circuit Court
       Judge at the Fourth Judicial Circuit
       Courts of Florida,

                                                       Defendant-Appellee.

       MARY SUZANNE BASS,
USCA11 Case: 22-11706      Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 03/09/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11706

                                                                 Defendant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-00078-TJC-JBT
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Christopher Nicholas Koonce-Hope appeals the district
       court’s dismissal of his federal civil rights complaint, in which he
       alleged that Florida Circuit Judge Suzanne Bass violated his due
       process and equal protection rights while presiding over his di-
       vorce.
              In the underlying state court action, Judge Bass awarded Mr.
       Koonce-Hope’s ex-wife full custody of their children, restrained
       Mr. Koonce-Hope from contacting his ex-wife, and required him
       to enroll in various domestic violence and mental health programs.
       Following the final judgment, Mr. Koonce-Hope filed a supple-
       mental petition to modify parental responsibility, but Judge Bass
       subsequently granted the ex-wife’s motion to dismiss the petition.
          Mr. Koonce-Hope then filed a complaint in federal district
       court, alleging that Judge Bass violated his constitutional rights be-
       cause (1) she failed to recuse herself from the case, (2) he did not
USCA11 Case: 22-11706      Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 03/09/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-11706               Opinion of the Court                         3

       receive notice of the June 25, 2020, hearing, (3) he “never had an
       opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action on June
       24, 2020, should not be taken[,]” (4) he did not have an opportunity
       to “present evidence” and call witnesses at the June 24, 2020, hear-
       ing, (5) he was denied his “right to know opposing evidence[,]” and
       (6) Judge Bass deprived him of his right to “examine adverse wit-
       nesses[.]” He also seemingly asserted that the substance of the state
       court’s rulings violated his due process and equal protection rights,
       claiming that the “signing of this order is the material and irrepara-
       ble harm that constitutes a denial of [his] [r]ights[.]”
           The nature of the remedy sought in the amended complaint is
       unclear. Mr. Koonce-Hope requested a “Fourteenth Amendment
       remedy” due to “adverse rulings and denials” and “numerous dep-
       rivations without due process of law.”
           The magistrate judge interpreted Mr. Koonce-Hope’s amended
       complaint to be a collateral attack on a state court judgment and
       recommended that the case be dismissed on that basis. Mr.
       Koonce-Hope’s objections, however, clarified that he did not seek
       relief from the state court’s final judgment. His objections insist
       that his amended complaint is not an improper attempt to collater-
       ally attack a state court judgment, but is instead a § 1983 claim
       brought for violations of his due process rights. The district court
       adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the case,
       citing to Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1071 (11th Cir. 2005),
       which discusses both judicial immunity and the Rooker Feldman
       doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
USCA11 Case: 22-11706      Document: 14-1       Date Filed: 03/09/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11706

       District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
       (1983).
           The Eleventh Circuit distinguishes between claims seeking re-
       lief from a state court judgment and claims seeking damages even
       if those claims are related to a state court case—the former are
       barred by Rooker Felman and the latter are not. See Sibley, 437
       F.3d at 1070 n.3 (“Sibley does not ask us to fix an erroneous state
       court judgment, which we could not do, but rather to award $10
       million against each state court judge who participated in his
       cases.”). See also Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1214 (11th Cir.
       2021) (“Because Rooker-Feldman bars only claims that invite a dis-
       trict court’s ‘review and rejection’ of a state court judgment, claims
       that seek only damages for constitutional violations of third par-
       ties—not relief from the judgment of the state court—are permit-
       ted.”). Because the amended complaint did not clearly state the
       relief it sought, and because pro se pleadings are liberally con-
       strued, see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th
       Cir. 1998), it is not clear that a complete dismissal on Rooker Feld-
       man grounds would be appropriate.
           Based on our review, it is unclear on which grounds the district
       court dismissed the case—i.e. whether the case was dismissed be-
       cause Judge Bass was protected by judicial immunity or because of
       the Rooker Feldman doctrine. Part of the reason that we are un-
       sure of the rationale for dismissing the case is that the district court
       dismissed the case with prejudice. When a district court dismisses
       a case for lack of jurisdiction, including under the Rooker Feldman
USCA11 Case: 22-11706      Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 03/09/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-11706                Opinion of the Court                         5

       doctrine, the dismissal must be entered without prejudice. See
       Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 438 (7th Cir. 2004)
       (“when the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies, there is only one
       proper disposition: dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction”);
       Stalley v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th
       Cir. 2008) (“A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not
       a judgment on the merits and is entered without prejudice.”).
           The district court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice indicates
       that perhaps the ground for the dismissal was judicial immunity.
       On the other hand, the district court’s adoption of the magistrate
       judge’s report and recommendation, which solely discusses a liti-
       gant’s inability to collaterally attack a state court judgment, indi-
       cates that the ground for the dismissal was Rooker Feldman. Be-
       cause we believe that the basis for the dismissal is unclear, we va-
       cate the order and remand for the district court to clarify the basis
       for dismissal. Should the district court again dismiss the amended
       complaint in its entirety, Mr. Koonce-Hope can, if he wishes, take
       an appeal from that order.
              VACATED AND REMANDED.