A judge enjoys “absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within the jurisdiction of his court.”
How later courts described this case
- A judge enjoys “absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within the jurisdiction of his court.”
- holding that federal district courts cannot review state court final judgments because that task is reserved for state appellate courts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KENNETH J. LAFAYETTE, II,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 8:24-cv-1383-JLB-TGW
OWENS, et. al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Kenneth J. Lafayette II, appearing pro se, seeks to challenge
decisions made by Florida Circuit Judge Hill in Plaintiff's Polk County Family
Court case. (Doc. 11 at 5). Plaintiff filed his amended Complaint on August 16,
2024 asking this Court to award an “immediate injunction” against Judge Hill and
other Defendants. (See id.). Plaintiff did not specify in his amended Complaint
whether he seeks a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or
injunctive relief issued at the time of judgment.1 Liberally construed, this Court
recognizes that Plaintiff may be seeking a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s purported request fails to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the Local Rules for the Middle
District of Florida.
1 Noteworthy, Plaintiff previously filed a motion for temporary injunction (Doc. 5),
which the Court denied (Doc. 6).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), Plaintiff must show the following
for the Court to issue a temporary restraining order:
(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining
order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney
only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Additionally, Middle District of Florida’s Local Rules 6.01 and
6.02 state that Plaintiff must include a precise and verified description of the
conduct and persons subject to restraint, any explanation of amount or form of
security, a supporting legal memorandum, and a proposed order. See M.D. Fla. R.
6.01, 6.02. Simply put, Plaintiff does not establish the requirements of a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction as is required by the Local Rules or
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. See M.D. Fla. R. 6.01, 6.02; Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b).
The Court cautions Plaintiff that his claims may be more appropriately
addressed by filing an appropriate motion in his Polk County Family Court case
and/or in the Florida appellate court charged with reviewing such claims for Polk
County state trial court judges, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal. See Casale
v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that federal district courts
cannot review state court final judgments because that task is reserved for state
appellate courts). As a general matter, state judges have judicial immunity from
suit. Nothing in the allegations suggests that Judge Hill has operated outside of his
role as a state circuit judge. See McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th
Cir. 2018) (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (A judge enjoys
“absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within the jurisdiction of
his court.”)). And Florida law gives Florida state courts exclusive jurisdiction over
family law matters. See Fla. Stat. §§ 26.012(2)(a), 34.01. Accordingly, the Court
strongly encourages Plaintiff to pursue his claims by filing an appropriate motion in
his state court case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 10, 2024.
PbS Guta
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE