Case: 17-14286 Date Filed: 05/09/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14286
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:17-cv-00008-LGW-RSB
THOMAS L. THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
KAREN LAWSON,
State Judge, Ohio,
JANET BELL,
State Judge, Ohio,
VINCENT CULLOTTA,
Elected State Judge, Ohio,
DAVID ALLEN BASINSKI,
Retired State Judge, Ohio,
J. KELLY BROOKS,
State Judge, Georgia,
Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 17-14286 Date Filed: 05/09/2019 Page: 2 of 4
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 9, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas L. Thomas, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his
complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 42 U.S.C. § 1986 1 against four Ohio
state court judges and one Georgia state court judge. The District Court adopted
the Magistrate Judge’s report and dismissed the complaint on three separate
grounds: (1) the action was frivolous and failed to state a claim; (2) it was not
within the power of the court to grant the relief requested; and (3) the defendant
judges were entitled to judicial immunity. Thomas argues that his complaint
should not have not been dismissed because the judges acted with a clear absence
of jurisdiction and thus were not entitled to judicial immunity. He does not address
the other reasons for the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint.
We liberally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). However, despite liberally construing a pro se
litigant’s briefs, we will not make arguments for the parties, and issues not briefed
1
Although, Thomas states that he is asserting a claim pursuant to § 1984, this statute was
“omitted” from Title 42. See 42 U.S.C. § 1984.
2
Case: 17-14286 Date Filed: 05/09/2019 Page: 3 of 4
are deemed abandoned. See id. Moreover, we “may affirm the district court’s
ruling on any basis the record supports.” Fla. Wildlife Fed’n Inc. v. United States
Army Corps of Eng’rs., 859 F.3d 1306, 1316 (11th Cir. 2017).
Furthermore, to “obtain reversal of a district court judgment that is based on
multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated
ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If an appellant does not address “one
of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have
abandoned any challenge of that ground,” and thus, “the judgment is due to be
affirmed.” Id. “A party fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not plainly
and prominently raise it, for instance by devoting a discrete section of his argument
to those claims.” Id. at 681 (quotation omitted).
The only argument that Thomas makes on appeal is that the defendant
judges were not entitled to judicial immunity. He argues that, in his earlier state
court cases, the judges entered orders after he had filed a notice for removal. Once
a party files a notice of removal, a state court’s jurisdiction terminates. See 28
U.S.C. § 1446(d) (stating that, after receiving notice of removal, “the State court
shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded”). Thus, Thomas
maintains, the state judges did not have jurisdiction to enter orders in his cases
after he had filed a notice of removal. And judges are not entitled to immunity
3
Case: 17-14286 Date Filed: 05/09/2019 Page: 4 of 4
when they act in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d
1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). For this reason, he
says, the District Court erred in finding that the defendants were immune.
But Thomas does not address the District Court’s other independent grounds
for dismissing his complaint. On appeal, Thomas does not address the District
Court’s holding that his case was frivolous and failed to state a claim, or that the
court lacked the power to grant the relief requested. Consequently, Thomas
waived these grounds. By abandoning grounds that independently support the
District Court’s decision, we have no choice but to affirm. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d
at 680.
AFFIRMED.
4