Melvin Blough v. Morris Silberman, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Melvin Blough. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 17-12190

Date Filed: 11/07/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12190
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-00371-VMC-TBM
MELVIN BLOUGH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MORRIS SILBERMAN,
individually and in his official capacity as a Justice within
the Florida Second District Court of Appeals,
MARVA CRENSHAW,
individually and in her official capacity as a Justice within
the Florida Second District Court of Appeals,
DANIEL H. SLEET,
individually and in his official capacity as a Justice within
the Florida Second District Court of Appeals,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 7, 2017)

Case: 17-12190

Date Filed: 11/07/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Before HULL, MARCUS and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin E. Blough appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case as barred
by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Prior to the filing of this suit, the Circuit
Court of Hillsborough County, Florida entered a “Final Judgment of Dissolution of
Marriage,” finalizing Blough’s divorce from his wife. Blough appealed, but a state
appellate court, consisting of the Honorable Morris Silberman, the Honorable
Marva Crenshaw, and the Honorable Daniel H. Sleet (“the defendants”) affirmed
the divorce decree. On appeal, Blough argues that the district court erred in
dismissing his case, because the defendants were not entitled to judicial immunity
since they improperly affirmed the decision of the state trial court, in violation of
the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. After careful review, we affirm.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint based on judicial immunity.
Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001).
“Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those
acts taken while 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) (quotation omitted). Whether a judge’s actions were made while acting in
his judicial capacity depends on whether: (1) the act complained of constituted a
normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge’s chambers or in
2

Case: 17-12190

Date Filed: 11/07/2017

Page: 3 of 4

open court; (3) the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and (4)
the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in his judicial
capacity. Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1983). Determination of
whether an act is “judicial,” depends on “the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it
is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectation of the parties,
i.e., whether they dealt with a judge in his judicial capacity. Mireles v. Waco, 502
U.S. 9, 12 (1991).
Here, the district court properly dismissed Blough’s complaint because the
defendants were entitled to judicial immunity.

Blough’s amended complaint

reflected that his sole allegations against the defendants were that they affirmed the
circuit court’s entry of final judgment in his divorce case.

As a result, the

defendants’ actions were taken in their judicial capacity, and their action, entering
an order affirming the decision of the circuit court, was a judicial act. Scott, 719
F.2d at 1565; Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12. And even if Blough established that the
defendants acted in bad faith or with malice -- which he has not -- this would not
overcome their judicial immunity. Pierson, 386 U.S. at 554. What’s more, Blough
does not argue, and there is no indication from his complaint that, the defendants
lacked jurisdiction to hear his case; rather, he only asserts that they improperly
failed to apply federal law.

Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239. Accordingly, the district

3

Case: 17-12190

Date Filed: 11/07/2017

Page: 4 of 4

court properly dismissed Blough’s suit because the defendants were entitled to
judicial immunity, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

4