Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 1 of 11
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15010
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-61295-WPD
NADINE MCINDOO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BROWARD COUNTY,
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ,
CASSANDRA MATHIS-SCARBROUGH,
ANDREA CURRY,
KARL SCHOLES, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 19, 2018)
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 2 of 11
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Nadine McIndoo, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal without prejudice of her second amended complaint, filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida law. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm the
dismissal.
Briefly stated, this civil action arises from an underlying child custody
dispute between Plaintiff and her son’s biological father, Defendant Ashley
Atkinson. Plaintiff says she was granted custody of her son by a New York state
court in 1999. Plaintiff and her son later moved to Florida. When Plaintiff was
hospitalized in late 2012, Child Protective Services placed temporarily Plaintiff’s
son in Atkinson’s care. Atkinson then moved Plaintiff’s son to Arizona.
Atkinson initiated child custody proceedings in Arizona state court in
January 2013; the Arizona state court exercised emergency jurisdiction over the
case. Meanwhile, Plaintiff filed in Florida state court a petition to domesticate the
1999 New York order. These events led to an ongoing dispute about what state --
Arizona or Florida -- had proper jurisdiction over the custody proceedings. In
2
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 3 of 11
2016, a Florida state court ordered that Plaintiff’s son be returned to Plaintiff’s
custody. *
In her initial complaint filed in this civil action, Plaintiff asserted 14 counts
for violations of her constitutional rights and Florida law. In a 13-page order, the
district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint based on six independent grounds: (1)
for failure to state a claim, (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (3) as an
impermissible shotgun pleading, (4) for lack of a statutory private right of action,
(5) as barred by judicial immunity, and (6) for lack of jurisdiction to review state
family court judgments. The district court then permitted Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.
In her 65-page second amended complaint, Plaintiff purported to assert 18
counts for violations of her constitutional rights and Florida law. In the style of her
complaint, Plaintiff named nine defendants: Atkinson, Christina Willis (Atkinson’s
girlfriend), Sharon Trepiccione (a family acquaintance), Karl Scholes (Plaintiff’s
former lawyer), Cassandra Mathis-Scarbrough (a court-appointed attorney for
Plaintiff’s son), Andrea Curry (a court-appointed best interest advocate for
Plaintiff’s son), George Reimer (a member of Arizona’s judicial ethics board),
Broward County, Florida, and Maricopa County, Arizona. Within the body of the
*
Before Plaintiff’s son could be returned to Plaintiff’s custody, however, Plaintiff’s son was
convicted of robbery and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in Arizona. Throughout her
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her son’s conviction and imprisonment was a “direct and
proximate result” of Defendants’ complained-of conduct.
3
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 4 of 11
complaint, Plaintiff also purported to assert claims against nine named Arizona and
Florida state court judges.
The district court concluded that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was
subject to dismissal for the reasons already explained in the district court’s earlier
13-page dismissal order, including for failure to allege adequately a basis for
subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted. The district court dismissed, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s complaint.
We review de novo questions about the district court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States Army Corps of
Eng’rs, 619 F.3d 1289, 1296 (11th Cir. 2010). We also review de novo the district
court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Am. Dental Ass’n v.
Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010). In doing so, we accept as true
the factual allegations in the complaint and construe them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Id. In addition, we construe liberally pro se pleadings.
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “[N]aked assertions devoid
of further factual enhancement” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
4
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 5 of 11
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation and alteration omitted).
I.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s claims against the Arizona and Florida state
court judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity. State court judges have
absolute immunity “from liability for damages for acts committed within their
judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). A judge is
entitled to immunity even when his conduct “was in error, was done maliciously,
or was in excess of his authority . . . .” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356
(1978). A judge acting within his judicial capacity is “subject to liability only
when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Id. at 356-57.
Here, Plaintiff’s claims against the Arizona and Florida state judges stem
from judicial rulings made by the state court judges as part of the underlying child-
custody proceedings. These decisions were made in the direct exercise of each
judge’s judicial function. See id. at 362 (in determining whether an act by a judge
is “judicial” in nature, we consider “whether it is a function normally performed by
a judge” and whether the parties “dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity”).
Although Plaintiff challenges the state court judges’ rulings as wrongly decided or
5
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 6 of 11
as negligent, Plaintiff alleges no facts demonstrating that the judges acted in the
“clear absence of all jurisdiction.” The Arizona and Florida state court judges are
thus entitled to absolute judicial immunity from Plaintiff’s claims.
To the extent judicial immunity would not bar Plaintiff’s claim against Judge
Coury for violation of the Emoluments Clause, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
for relief. This case involves no title of nobility or gift from a foreign power that
would implicate the Emoluments Clause; that claim was thus subject to dismissal.
See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8.
Apart from the complained-of conduct of the state court judges, Plaintiff
makes no factual allegations about -- and asserts no claims for liability against --
Broward County or Maricopa County. Plaintiff has thus stated no claim for relief
against these defendants.
II.
Plaintiff purports to assert claims for violations of her constitutional rights --
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- against these defendants: Atkinson, Mathis-
Scarbrough, Curry, Scholes, Reimer, the State of Florida, and the State of Arizona.
To state a claim for relief under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person
6
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 7 of 11
acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal right. Griffin v. City of
Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001).
The district court committed no error in dismissing Plaintiff’s section 1983
claims against Atkinson, Mathis-Scarbrough, Curry, and Scholes. These
defendants are private parties, and Plaintiff has alleged no facts demonstrating that
these defendants should be viewed as state actors. Cf. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d
1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (setting out the “rare circumstances” in which a
private party may be treated as a “state actor” for purposes of section 1983
liability). Atkinson’s use of a state court constitutes no act under color of state
law. See Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1133 (11th Cir. 1992). Nor does
Scholes’s status as an officer of the court subject him to section 1983 liability. See
Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19, 318 n.7 (1981) (“a lawyer
representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor
‘under color of state law’ within the meaning of § 1983.”). That Mathis-
Scarbrough and Curry were appointed by the state court is also insufficient by
itself to transform them into state actors. See Vermont v. Brillion, 556 U.S. 81, 91
(2009) (“assigned counsel ordinarily is not considered a state actor”); Harvey, 949
F.2d at 1132-34 (a state court-appointed emergency guardian who recommended
involuntary commitment was no state actor for purposes of section 1983).
7
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 8 of 11
About Reimer, Plaintiff has alleged insufficient facts from which we can
conclude whether Reimer (we do not decide whether Reimer might be due some
immunity -- judicial or otherwise) was a state actor. Even to the extent Reimer can
be characterized as a state actor, Plaintiff alleges only that Reimer dismissed her
complaint for judicial misconduct. With no more facts, Plaintiff has stated no
plausible claim for relief against Reimer for violation of a federally protected right.
About Plaintiff’s claims against the States of Florida and Arizona, those
claims were also subject to dismissal as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).
III.
Plaintiff purports to assert a claim for violation of the Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). Each state pertinent to
Plaintiff’s claims -- Arizona, Florida, and New York -- has adopted a version of the
UCCJEA. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-1001 et seq.; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.501 et
seq.; N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 75 et seq. Because these statutes provide no private
right of action for an injured party to sue for violations of the UCCJEA, the district
court committed no error in dismissing Plaintiff’s claim.
8
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 9 of 11
IV.
Plaintiff asserts a claim against Atkinson for intentional interference with the
parent/child relationship. To state a claim for intentional interference with the
parent/child relationship under Florida law, Plaintiff must allege facts
demonstrating that “the plaintiff had superior custody rights to the child and that
the defendant intentionally interfered with those rights.” Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d
1038, 1042 (Fla. 1999).
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has
alleged no facts sufficient to demonstrate that she had “superior custodial rights”
over her son. In her second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Atkinson
had been granted temporary custody over her son before Atkinson moved her son
to Arizona. Atkinson then initiated child custody proceedings, seeking permanent
custody. Given that the status of Plaintiff’s and Atkinson’s respective custodial
rights were the subject of pending child-custody proceedings, Plaintiff cannot state
a claim for relief for an intentional interference with her parent/child relationship.
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that she was her son’s legal custodial guardian
are inconsistent with her factual allegations and are insufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
9
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 10 of 11
Plaintiff also purports to assert claims based on an alleged conspiracy to
interfere with Plaintiff’s parental rights and to commit fraud on the court. In
support of her claims, Plaintiff contends that Atkinson and Trepiccione lied
intentionally to the Arizona state court to influence the outcome of the child
custody proceedings. Plaintiff also alleges that Atkinson, Reimer, Mathis-
Scarbrough, Curry, and Scholes (1) manipulated unlawfully the custody
proceedings to establish jurisdiction in Arizona; and (2) engaged in a “secret plan”
to assist Atkinson in gaining full custody. These conclusory and speculative
allegations, devoid of factual support, state no plausible claim for relief. See id.
V.
Plaintiff also fails to state a plausible claim for relief for gross negligence,
negligence, or for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Briefly stated,
Plaintiff contends that Mathis-Scarbrough and Curry were negligent -- and liable
for intentional infliction of emotional distress -- for failing to investigate
adequately and to consider properly all pertinent information before making
recommendations about custody. Plaintiff also alleges that Willis was grossly
negligent for deceiving Plaintiff’s son and discouraging him from wanting to return
to Plaintiff’s care. Plaintiff also contends that Atkinson is liable for intentional
10
Case: 17-15010 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 11 of 11
infliction of emotional distress based on his alleged misrepresentations to the state
court during the child-custody proceedings.
Plaintiff makes no specific factual allegations to support her conclusory and
speculative statements. Plaintiff has thus failed to satisfy the federal pleading
standards. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to allege conduct “so outrageous in
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of
decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community,” as required to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress under Florida law. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So.
2d 277, 278-79 (Fla. 1985).
Because Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was subject to dismissal --
and because the district court had already provided Plaintiff an opportunity to
amend her complaint -- the district court committed no error in dismissing the
complaint without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
11