[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 23, 2012
No. 10-13191
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-21591-JEM
DERRICK ALLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
11th Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County,
3rd District Court of Appeals,
U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
Southern District, et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________________________
(February 23, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Allen, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a
claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). No reversible error has been shown; we
affirm.
Allen filed a section 1983 complaint against (1) the State of Florida, (2) the
Florida State Attorney General, and (3) the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Miami
Dade County, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme
Court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and
this Court (collectively, “Defendant Courts”). Allen claimed that various
attorneys from the State Attorney General’s office filed fraudulent pleadings in his
underlying criminal and habeas corpus proceedings. He also alleged that various
judges of the Defendant Courts violated his due process rights by failing to review
properly his pleadings in those proceedings.
The district court dismissed Allen’s complaint for failure to state a claim
because (1) Defendants were not “persons” acting under color of state law, as
required by section 1983; (2) Allen was improperly using a section 1983 claim to
2
challenge his underlying state convictions; and (3) Allen’s challenges to his
criminal convictions were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to
state a claim under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,
1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003). And we may affirm on any ground supported by the
record even if that ground was not relied upon or considered by the district court.
Thomas v. Cooper Lighting Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007).*
Because we conclude that each Defendant is immune from Allen’s section
1983 suit, we need not address the district court’s reasons for dismissal. See id.
First, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state brought by the state’s
own citizens or citizens of other states. McClendon v. Ga. Dep’t of Cmty. Health,
261 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001). Nothing evidences that an exception to the
Eleventh Amendment immunity applies in this case. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v.
Fla., 11 F.3d 1016, 1021 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing three exceptions to Eleventh
Amendment immunity). Thus, the Eleventh Amendment bars Allen’s claims
against the State of Florida.
*
In addition, we liberally construe pro se pleadings. See Tannenbaum v. United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
3
Second, prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from suits under
section 1983 for activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of
the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 96 S.Ct. 984, 995 (1976) (concluding
that a prosecutor is immune from suit for actions performed while “initiating a
prosecution and . . . presenting the State’s case”). Because Allen’s claims against
the State Attorney General’s office focus on the content of the State’s pleadings in
Allen’s criminal and habeas corpus proceedings, the claims are barred by
prosecutorial immunity.
Allen’s claims against the Defendant Courts are also barred. Judges are
entitled to absolute immunity from suits for acts performed while they are acting
in their judicial capacity unless they acted in “complete absence of all
jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286, 288 (1991). Immunity applies even
when the judge’s acts are in error, malicious, or in excess of his or her jurisdiction.
Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000). Allen’s complaints against
the judges of the Defendant Courts are based on the judges’ alleged failure to
review properly his pleadings. The judges acted within their jurisdiction and
judicial capacity in denying Allen’s claims and, thus, they are entitled to absolute
judicial immunity.
4
Because each Defendant is immune from suit, the district court properly
dismissed Allen’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
AFFIRMED.
5