Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Mark J. Cuyler v. the Honorable Mark E. Fuller
December 27, 2011
MARK J. CUYLER, PLAINTIFF,
THE HONORABLE MARK E. FULLER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Steven D. Merryday United States District Judge
Seeking $800,000,000 in damages, the pro se plaintiff sues (Doc. 3) in the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, seven district court judges*fn1 in their individual and official capacities for "discrimination," "conspiracy to commit fraud," and "civil rights violations" under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and Bivens.*fn2 The defendants remove (Doc. 2) and move (Doc. 12) to dismiss. The plaintiff responds (Doc. 14) in opposition and moves (Doc. 15) for disqualification.*fn3
If performing a judicial act, judges have absolute immunity from suits for monetary damages. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871). Judicial absolute immunity exists despite a charge that the judge acted maliciously or corruptly. Bradley, 80 U.S. at 347 ("The purity of [a judge's] motives cannot . . . be the subject of judicial scrutiny."); Pierson, 386 U.S. at 554 ("[A judge] should not have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption."); Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1172 (11th Cir. 1985). An act by a judge is a "judicial act" if (1) "it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties" and (2) the parties dealt with the judge in his official capacity." Stump, 435 U.S. at 361. Each alleged violation is the type of act performed only by a judge. Each alleged violation occurred in a judicial setting, as a consequence of the case pending before each respective judge, and by virtue of a necessary judicial function. Each alleged violation arose from an order of a court-a "paradigmatic" judicial act-as an immediate consequence of the plaintiff's appearance. See Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227 (1988). Accordingly, absolute judicial immunity requires dismissal.*fn4 Cuyler v. United States District Court, No. 6:11-cv-1225, 2011 WL 5525935 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2011) (dismissing the plaintiff's nearly identical lawsuit against the seven district judges named in this action).
The defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. Because the defendants properly remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), the plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 13) is DENIED. For the reasons stated in Cuyler, No. 6:11-cv-1225, Doc. 25, the plaintiff's motion to disqualify (Doc. 15) is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to (1) terminate any pending motion and (2) close the case.
Buy This Entire Record For