WALKER v. CANADY et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; and denying 24 Motion to Amend/Correct; signed by CHIEF JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 6/1/11. (tss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ADDYS T. WALKER.
Plaintiff,
vs.

4:11-CV-68-SPM/WCS

CHARLES T. CANADY, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss (docs. 17, 18). The Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition. However,
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Extend Time to Amend the Complaint (doc. 24), to
which Defendants have responded in opposition (docs. 25, 26). Plaintiff brought
this complaint (doc. 1) against the Justices of the Florida Supreme Court, a
prosecutor and executive director of the Florida Bar, and a Senior Judge
appointed as Referee by the Florida Supreme Court, seeking injunctive relief from
the Florida Bar proceedings against him for indirect criminal contempt, stemming
from Plaintiff’s having been enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of
law and subsequent failure to pay restitution and monetary penalty. Pursuant to
the federal court abstention principle announced by the Supreme Court in Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Court will decline Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief. “A court may abstain from granting injunctive relief under Younger where:

(1) the state proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates an important
state interest; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise a constitutional
challenge in the state court proceedings.” Chen ex. rel. V.D. v. Lester, 364 Fed.
App’x 531, 535 (11th Cir. 2010). Moreover, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to review a final order of the Florida
Supreme Court, the validity of which is at the crux of this lawsuit. See Doe v. Fla.

Bar, 640 F.3d 1336, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Motions to Dismiss (docs. 17, 18) are granted. Plaintiff’s
complaint is dismissed.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Amend (doc. 24) is denied,
as amendment would be futile.

3.

The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this first day of June, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
Chief United States District Judge

2