[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
_______________________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-15501 June 10, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
_______________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-21698-CV-JLK
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL,
STEVEN G. BREYER,
RUTH BADER GINSBURG,
ANTHONY KENNEDY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 10, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Montgomery Sibley appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his complaint against the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
the United States Supreme Court, and each of the Justices of the Supreme Court in
their individual capacities for alleged violations of his rights in a number of other
legal actions filed by Sibley concerning a domestic dispute. Because the justices and
courts are entitled to judicial immunity, we affirm.
I. Facts
Sibley, a Florida attorney proceeding pro se, filed a complaint1 alleging that the
Supreme Court violated his rights by (1) adopting the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
limiting federal court review of state court decisions; (2) adopting the Younger
abstention doctrine; (3) enacting Rule 10 of the Rules of the United States Supreme
Court and thereby placing writs of certiorari within the discretion of the Court; and
(4) ignoring stare decisis. Sibley’s complaint alleged that the Eleventh Circuit
violated his rights by (1) issuing unpublished opinions and ignoring stare decisis; (2)
employing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and (3) employing the Younger abstention
doctrine. Sibley sought declaratory relief against both courts.
1
Sibley later filed an amended complaint which corrected a “scrivener’s error” in citations
in the original complaint. Because the amendment made no substantive changes, the district
court considered all of Sibley’s claims when it dismissed the action based on its analysis of the
original complaint. Therefore, Sibley’s contention that the district court erred in failing to
“consider” his amended complaint fails.
2
Sibley’s complaint also sought one million dollars in damages against the
individual Justices of the Supreme Court for (1) acting outside the scope of their
jurisdiction in denying review, (2) perversion of justice under state law, (3)
negligence, and (4) treason.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
defendants argued that they are entitled to judicial immunity from suit and that there
was no private right of action for the alleged violations. The district court found that
judicial immunity applied and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff filed a timely
appeal.
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics,
Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 208 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2000).
III. Analysis
The justices contend that they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from
suit for damages. The law is well-settled that judges are indeed entitled to immunity
from suit for damages when acting in their judicial capacity unless they act in the
3
“clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir.
2000). Supreme Court justices are acting within their jurisdiction when they choose
to deny writs of certiorari. The district court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the
claims for monetary damages based on judicial immunity.
The defendant courts contend that they are entitled to immunity from Sibley’s
claim for injunctive relief. Litigants may seek injunctive relief for violation of their
federal constitutional rights by state judges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pulliam v. Allen,
466 U.S. 522 (1984). Furthermore, § 1983 has been applied to federal actors under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Section 1983 provides, however, that “in any action brought against a
judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,
injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or
declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute thus limits Sibley’s
injunctive remedy to declaratory relief. In Bolin, we held that a similar plaintiff was
not eligible for declaratory relief because he had an adequate remedy at law—namely,
the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals and to petition the Supreme Court
for certiorari. Bolin, 255 F.3d at 1243. Sibley enjoyed a similar remedy at law, and
thus his claim for injunctive relief must also fail.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4