Irma I. Donato Malave v. Karen Abram

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-01985-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Gansler [999254161].. [13-1950]

Appeal: 13-1950

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/06/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1950

IRMA I. DONATO MALAVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HON. KAREN H. ABRAMS, St. Mary's County Judge; HON.
CHRISTOPHER B. KEHOE; HON. STUART BERGER;
HON. JAMES P.
SALMON, Court of Special Appeals Judges; HON. ROBERT M.
BELL, Court of Appeals Chief Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:13-cv-01985-DKC)

Submitted:

November 27, 2013

Decided:

December 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rickey Nelson Jones, LAW OFFICES OF REVEREND RICKEY NELSON
JONES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Douglas F. Gansler,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1950

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/06/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Donato

appeals

PER CURIAM:
Irma
orders

I.

dismissing

jurisdiction

and

her

Malave

complaint

denying

for

the

lack

district

of

reconsideration.

subject

For

the

court’s
matter

following

reasons, we affirm.
It

is

well-established

that

the

burden

of

proving

subject matter jurisdiction is on the plaintiff, the party who
is

asserting

jurisdiction.

Robb

Evans

&

Assocs.,

Holibaugh, 609 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2010).
district

court’s

dismissal

jurisdiction de novo.
(4th Cir. 2013).

for

lack

of

LLC

v.

We review the
subject

matter

Cooksey v. Futrell, 721 F.3d 226, 234

In addition, judges enjoy absolute judicial

immunity from damages liability for judicial acts unless done
“in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Citing Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), Malave
argues on appeal that judicial immunity does not apply to claims
for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
precedent

established

by

that

decision

was

However, the

abrogated

by

the

Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-317, 110
Stat. 3847, which amended § 1983 and provided that “injunctive
relief [against a judicial officer] shall not be granted unless
a

declaratory

decree

was

violated

2

or

declaratory

relief

was

Appeal: 13-1950

Doc: 14

unavailable.”

Filed: 12/06/2013

Id. § 309.

Pg: 3 of 3

Malave has not shown that either

condition was satisfied here. 1
Moreover,

we

conclude

that

the

district

court

correctly held that consideration of Malave’s claims was barred
by the Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine.

See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.

Ct. 1289, 1297 (2011) (discussing doctrine).
effectively

sought

to

have

the

district

Because Malave

court

review

the

Maryland state courts’ decisions, her action was barred by the
Rooker-Feldman

doctrine,

and

the

jurisdiction to entertain her claims.

district

court

lacked

Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s orders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

1

Moreover, although the Supreme Court concluded in Pulliam
that attorney fees in § 1983 cases are a statutory exception to
the general rule, this holding was also abrogated by the Federal
Courts Improvement Act of 1996. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
2

See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

3