Court Opinion

ID: 9893609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 21:00:50.148736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:37.995324
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10605     Document: 9-1      Date Filed: 10/27/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10605
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

      JOHNNIE MARENE THOMAS,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      JUDGE ROBERT C. SWEATT, JR.,
      In his individual and personal capacity,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00139-LGW-BWC
USCA11 Case: 23-10605     Document: 9-1      Date Filed: 10/27/2023     Page: 2 of 3

      2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10605

                           ____________________

      Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
              Johnnie Marene Thomas, proceeding pro se, appeals the dis-
      trict court’s dismissal with prejudice of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 com-
      plaint. The court’s basis for dismissal was its conclusion that the
      defendant, Georgia Probate Judge Robert C. Sweatt, Jr., was enti-
      tled to judicial immunity. Ms. Thomas argues that Judge Sweatt
      was not entitled to judicial immunity because he acted outside of
      his jurisdiction in adjudicating the estate of her late mother.
             We review de novo a district court’s grant of judicial immun-
      ity. See Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001). “Pro se
      pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
      drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”
      Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
             “Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from dam-
      ages for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial ca-
      pacity unless they acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”
      Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omit-
      ted). Absolute judicial immunity “applies even when the judge’s
      acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his her jurisdic-
      tion.” Id. “[T]he necessary inquiry in determining whether a de-
      fendant judge is immune from suit is whether at the time he took
      the challenged action he had jurisdiction over the subject matter
      before him.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).
USCA11 Case: 23-10605     Document: 9-1     Date Filed: 10/27/2023     Page: 3 of 3

      23-10605               Opinion of the Court                        3

              We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing
      Ms. Thomas’ complaint based on judicial immunity. Ms. Thomas’
      conclusory statements that Judge Sweatt violated his judicial oath
      and the Constitution lack the specificity required to show that
      Judge Sweatt acted outside of his jurisdiction as a probate judge.
      See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239. Moreover, Ms. Thomas fails to allege
      any specific facts showing that Judge Sweatt did not have jurisdic-
      tion over the adjudication of the estate of her late mother. See
      Stump, 435 U.S. at 356. Indeed, Ms. Thomas contends that Judge
      Sweatt violated her rights by not awarding her an equal share of
      the estate. Judge Sweatt’s act of disposing of a decedent’s estate
      falls squarely within the jurisdictional authority of a state probate
      judge. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ms.
      Thomas’ § 1983 action.
            AFFIRMED.