“Judicial immunity applies when (1) the judge dealt with the plaintiff in his judicial capacity[,] and (2) the judge did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)
How later courts described this case
- “Judicial immunity applies when (1) the judge dealt with the plaintiff in his judicial capacity[,] and (2) the judge did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-21812-BLOOM
ALBERONICK VALSAINT,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, KATHERINE FERNANDEZ-RUNDLE,
KARL SAINT HOPE BROWN, KATHLEEN SINGER-KING,
EMILIO MONTOYA, GORDON CHARLES MURRAY, GISELA
CARDONNE ELY, STEVEN GROSSBARD, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY &
MOTOR VEHICLES, and FLORIDA COMMERCE,
Defendants.
__________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Alberonick Valsaint’s Complaint, ECF
No. [1], Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“Motion”), ECF No. [3], and Motion to
Recuse, ECF No. [7]. Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has not paid the required filing fee,
the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply. Under the statute, courts are permitted to
dismiss a suit “any time [] the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous
or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Moreover, “a district
court does, and indeed must, have the power to control and direct the cases on its docket.” Burden
v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). This includes the inherent power
to dismiss a case. Id. The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the Motion, the record, and is
otherwise fully advised. For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that the State of Florida, with its “collaborative government agencies and
employees,” denied Plaintiff the right to renew his passport for international travel and has held
Plaintiff hostage in the United States for fifteen years. ECF No. [1] at ¶ 21. In addition, Defendants
have denied Plaintiff the right to housing – Plaintiff alleges that the State and its associates froze
Plaintiff’s bank accounts, stole his money, and then kicked Plaintiff out to live on the street. Id. at
¶ 22. As a result, Plaintiff got sick but was denied health insurance coverage by the Department of
Children and Families without any valid reason. Id. Plaintiff further contends that the State and its
associates denied Plaintiff the opportunity to work and put “a technical blockage . . . against him,”
revoked Plaintiff’s driver’s license, tapped Plaintiff’s phone line, hacked his email, withheld
Plaintiff’s unemployment benefits, sold Plaintiff’s “personal and sensitive information to data
brokers on the dark web, where they have exposed [Plaintiff] to cybercriminals,” and denied
Plaintiff SNAP benefits. Id. at ¶¶ 23-28.
Plaintiff asserts ten claims against Defendants, alleging violations of his First, Fourth,
Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 7-20. Further,
Plaintiff asserts two claims for state liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2
against the State of Florida. Id. at 20-22. Plaintiff’s case was initially assigned to United States
Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett. ECF No. [2]. Plaintiff moved for case reassignment, electing
to opt out of magistrate jurisdiction. ECF Nos. [7], [8], [9], [10].
II. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Complaint
In reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by
sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment confirms that “the fundamental principle of
sovereign immunity limits the grant of judicial authority in Art[icle] III.” Green v. Mansour, 474
U.S. 64, 68 (1985) (quoting Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98
(1984)). “Because of the Eleventh Amendment, States may not be sued in federal court unless they
consent to it in unequivocal terms or unless Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of power,
unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate the immunity.” Green, 474 U.S. at 68. This
immunity extends to state agencies and other arms of the state. Cassady v. Hall, 892 F.3d 1150,
1153 (11th Cir. 2018). Therefore, “courts should look to whether the sovereign is the real party in
interest to determine whether sovereign immunity bars the suit. In making this assessment, courts
may not simply rely on the characterization of the parties in the complaint, but rather must
determine in the first instance whether the remedy sought is truly against the sovereign.” Lewis v.
Clarke, 581 U.S. 155, 162 (2017) (internal citations omitted).
Under the Ex parte Young doctrine, an exception to this general rule exists where a plaintiff
seeks prospective equitable relief to end continuing violations of federal law. Summit Med. Assocs.,
P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F.3d 1326, 1336 (11th Cir. 1999); Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). The
“‘general criterion for determining when a suit is in fact against the sovereign is the effect of the
relief sought.’ . . . Thus, Ex parte Young cannot be used to obtain an injunction requiring the
payment of funds from the State’s treasury, or an order for specific performance of a State’s
contract[.]” Va. Off. for Prot. & Advoc. v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 256-57 (2011) (emphasis in
original) (quoting Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 107).
Here, Plaintiff names the State, which he defines as “a sub-national administrative division,
a federated state, represented by Attorney General James W. Uthmeier,” as a Defendant. ECF No.
[1] at 2. Plaintiff asserts violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Uthmeier and Fernandez Rundle. Id. at 7-20. Further,
Plaintiff asserts two claims for state liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2
against the State of Florida. Id. at 20-22. Although Plaintiff asserts his claims against Uthmeier
and Fernandez Rundle, Florida is clearly “the real party in interest[.]” Lewis, 581 U.S. at 162.
Indeed, Plaintiff challenges, for example, the denial of his passport renewal, his job status,
employment benefits, and revocation of his driver’s license, all of which are actions he attributes
to the State. ECF No. [1]. The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s claims do not fall within the Ex
parte Young exception because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and does not allege a continuing
violation of federal law. See Summit Med. Assocs., P.C., 180 F.3d at 1336. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Complaint is due to be dismissed.
Nevertheless, the Court must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less
stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797
(11th Cir. 2018) (citing Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). Throughout the
Complaint, Plaintiff mentions various other state agents, such as the state attorney for Miami-Dade
County, various assistant state attorneys, and state county court judges, but asserts no claims
against them. See ECF No. [1] at 2-4. Thus, it is unclear, which, if any, of their actions he
challenges. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to assert claims against such Defendants, Plaintiff
shall have one opportunity to amend his Complaint to do so. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must
abide by “the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989); see Hoffman v. Off. of State Att’y, Fourth
Jud. Cir., 793 F. App’x 945, 950 (11th Cir. 2019) (“A prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity
for all actions he takes while performing his functions as an advocate for the government in the
judicial phase of the criminal process.” (internal quotation omitted)); Bush v. Washington Mut.
Bank, 177 F. App’x 16, 17 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Judicial immunity applies when (1) the judge dealt
with the plaintiff in his judicial capacity[,] and (2) the judge did not act in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)).
B. Motion to Recuse
The Court writes briefly to address the abhorrent, racist, and inappropriate language used
by Plaintiff in his Motion to Recuse, ECF No. [7]. As indicated above, Plaintiff’s case was initially
assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett. In his Motion, Plaintiff writes that
he does not “want a handpicked magistrate or activist magistrate who will hijack his federal civil
rights as to push the corrupt and racist agenda of the Defendants.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff further states
that “[l]ow life, brainless and useless black women with destructive mindsets, teamed up with sell-
out black people and other racist government employees, fabricated lies and used deceptive
practices to destroy good black men[,]” and to “[m]ake sure you tell your fellow black women to
get a job or get a trade instead of using fabricated lies, deceptive practices, and the rigged justice
system to their advantage[.]” Id. at 3.
The Court is vested with the authority to “impose silence, respect, and decorum in [its]
presence, and submission to their lawful mandates.” Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481
U.S. 787, 798 (1987). “Put another way, the judiciary “‘must have and exercise authority and
power over the control and conduct of judicial proceedings.’” United States v. Walker, 679 F.
Supp. 3d 1328, 1331 (N.D. Fla. 2023) (quoting In re Chaplain, 621 F.2d 1272, 1277 (4th Cir.
1980)). One way the Court may do so is through its contempt power, which is “essential to the
preservation of order in judicial proceedings.” Young, 481 U.S. at 798. Although the Court is
cognizant of Plaintiff’s frustrations, the Court will not tolerate vile and nonsensical remarks toward
anyone, including a dedicated public servant of this Court with an impeccable reputation.
Therefore, Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court may initiate contempt proceedings should this
conduct continue.
Case No. 25-cv-21812-BLOOM
Il. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
3. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Court’s Order, no
later than August 25, 2025. The failure to file an Amended Complaint or show cause
by August 25, 2025, will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice and without
further notice.
4. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, all
pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMINATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 4, 2025.
BETHBLOOM ————“‘COCS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record
Alberonick Valsaint
PO Box 170931
Miami, FL 33017-0931