Case: 12-11909 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11909
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00048-MCR-EMT
LAWRENCE L. BLANKENSHIP,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN L. MILLER,
Circuit Court Judge,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 7, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-11909 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 3
In this case, Lawrence L. Blankenship, proceeding pro se, seeks damages
against John L. Miller, a judge of the Santa Rosa County Circuit Court, for the
violation of his rights under the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. The District Court dismissed
Blankenship’s amended complaint “because th[e] court lack[ed] jurisdiction to
conduct appellate review of orders entered in state court proceedings, and because
Defendant Judge John L. Miller is immune from suit.” Order dated March 5,
2012. Blankenship now appeals the District Court’s decision.
Blankenship’s amended complaint seeks damages against Judge Miller for
“deny[ing] [Blankenship] due process by refusing to consider his motion [for] oral
argument.” Amended Comp. at 3. “If Judge Miller [had] granted the oral
argument, he [would have been] asked to explain these errors, and Judge Miller
refused to do so. In fact, Judge Miller tried to deceive the Plaintiff by stating it
lacked the authority to correct the errors of the lower court.” Id. at 4. “The Circuit
Appellate Judges, including Judge Miller, filed an ‘ORDER RECUSE’ themselves
from hearing the Plaintiff’s ‘APPEAL’.” Id. at 5. These allegations make it clear
that Blankenship was suing Judge Miller for rulings he made, as a trial judge or as
an appellate judge, in a case in which Blankenship was the plaintiff.
Judges are absolutely immune “from damages for those acts taken while
2
Case: 12-11909 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 3 of 3
they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the ‘clear absence of
all jurisdiction.’” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331
(1978)); see also Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070-71 (11th Cir. 2005). It is
clear from Blankenship’s amended complaint that Judge Miller’acted in his
judicial capacity when he committed the acts of which Blankenship complains.
Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing the amended complaint
and Blankenship’s case on the ground that Judge Miller is immune from suit.
AFFIRMED.
3