Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13940
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-60306-MGC
LAURA M. WATSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION,
RUBEN V. CHAVEZ,
Co-Special Counsel to the Florida Judicial Qualifications
Commission, in individual and official capacities,
MAYANNE DOWNS,
Member of the Hearing Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications
Commission, in individual and official capacities,
KERRY I. EVANDER,
Chair of the Hearing Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications
Commission, in individual and official capacities,
THOMAS B. FREEMAN,
Member of the Investigative Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications
Commission, in individual and official capacities, in individual and official
capacities, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 2 of 10
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 15, 2018)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Laura M. Watson, a former Florida circuit court judge proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s dismissal based on absolute and qualified immunity of
her pro se second amended complaint raising civil rights claims under
42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim
arising out of the Florida Judicial Qualification Commission’s (“JQC”)
recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court that she be removed from the bench
and her subsequent disbarment by The Florida Bar. She raised claims against 19
officials from the JQC and The Florida Bar (collectively, “the JQC and Bar
Officials”) in their individual capacities. On appeal, Watson argues that the JQC
and Bar Officials: (1) waived any absolute immunity defense by failing to raise it
in an earlier appeal; (2) are not entitled to absolute immunity anyway because they
would not have had immunity when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1871; and
(3) are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established
2
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 3 of 10
statutory and constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.
I.
Whether an official is entitled to absolute immunity is a question of law that
we review de novo. Stevens v. Osuna,
877 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017). For
the purpose of determining whether the defendants are entitled to absolute
immunity, we accept as true the allegations of the complaint, along with any
reasonable inference that may be drawn from them. Long v. Satz,
181 F.3d 1275,
1278 (11th Cir. 1999). We also review the dismissal of a complaint based on
qualified immunity de novo. Cottone v. Jenne,
326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir.
2003).
Although the text of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not explicitly provide immunity,
the Supreme Court has reasoned that at the time Congress enacted § 1983,
Congress meant to incorporate the common law immunities then available, or
would have explicitly provided otherwise. Jones v. Cannon,
174 F.3d 1271, 1281
(11th Cir. 1999). Thus, determination of absolute immunity is not a policy
determination, but involves an historical exercise.
Id. The Supreme Court has
interpreted § 1983 to give absolute immunity to functions intimately associated
with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335,
342 (1986).
3
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 4 of 10
Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts
committed within their judicial jurisdiction. Stevens, 877 F.3d at 1301. Absolute
immunity applies to claims made in an individual capacity. See id. at 1300-01,
1304-08 (stating that the plaintiff’s claims are against the judge in his individual
capacity and applying absolute immunity). A judge must decide all cases before
him, including cases that are controversial and may arouse intense feelings in the
litigants. Id. at 1301. Although a judge’s error may be corrected on appeal, he
should not have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may pursue litigation charging
malice or corruption, which would not promote principled or fearless decision-
making. Id.
Absolute immunity is not reserved only for Article III judges and is not
based on rank or title, but rather flows from the “nature of the responsibilities of
the individual official.” Id. at 1301-02 (quotation marks omitted). Courts instead
use a functional approach to determine whether an official is entitled to absolute
immunity. Id. at 1302. Factors to consider in deciding whether to apply absolute
immunity to a particular person include: (1) the need to assure that the individual
can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation; (2) the presence of
safeguards that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of
controlling unconstitutional conduct; (3) insulation from political influence; (4) the
importance of precedent; (5) the adversary nature of the process; and (6) the
4
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 5 of 10
correctability of error on appeal. Id. Under this functional approach, absolute
immunity has been extended to state court judges, administrative law judges and
federal hearing examiners, federal and state prosecutors, grand jurors, and
witnesses testifying in judicial proceedings. Id.
In Stevens, we extended absolute immunity to immigration judges, noting
that immigration judges were tasked with resolving cases that were just as fractious
as those in court. Id. Moreover, we noted that immigration proceedings were
adversarial in nature and often involved controversial issues of extreme
significance to those involved, which underscored the importance of preserving an
immigration judge’s independence. Id. We further concluded that an immigration
judge’s role in immigration proceedings was functionally comparable to that of a
judge because an immigration judge had many of the same powers. Id. We noted
that immigration judges, like Article III judges, were required to exercise
independent judgment, resolve issues in an impartial manner, and were bound by
agency and federal court precedent. Id. at 1302-03. Similarly, we noted that, as in
Article III courts, parties to an immigration hearing may be represented by counsel,
may present documentary evidence and witness testimony, and are entitled to
written notice of the immigration judge’s decision, which is required to provide
reasons for the decision. Id. at 1303. We also noted that parties could seek review
of the immigration judge’s decision. Id.
5
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 6 of 10
Prosecutors are also absolutely immune from liability for damages for
activities that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal
process. Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). Courts again use a
functional approach to determine whether an individual is entitled to prosecutorial
immunity, which “looks to the nature of the function performed, not to the identity
of the person who performed it.” Hart v. Hodges,
587 F.3d 1288, 1294-95 (11th
Cir. 2009). Absolute immunity can cover even wrongful or malicious acts by
prosecutors.
Id. at 1298. The immunity applies where, in the course of their role
as an advocate for the state, a prosecutor prepares for the initiation of judicial
proceedings or for trial. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons,
509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993).
The immunity also applies where the prosecutor uses false testimony and
suppresses exculpatory evidence at trial. Fullman v. Graddick,,
739 F.2d 553,
558-59 (11th Cir. 1984). Even where the plaintiff claimed that the prosecutor:
(1) conspired to cause the issuance of a second state warrant; (2) called upon law
enforcement officers to detain the plaintiff upon his release from federal prison;
and (3) conspired to threaten further prosecution, we concluded that absolute
immunity applied because all of the prosecutor’s actions were “directly related to
and intimately associated with the state trial court’s sentence and his role as an
advocate regarding the court’s sentence.” Hart,
587 F.3d at 1296-98.
6
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 7 of 10
Employees of The Florida Bar are entitled to absolute immunity when they
act as agents of the Florida Supreme Court. Carroll v. Gross,
984 F.2d 392, 393
(11th Cir. 1993).
The Florida Constitution vests the JQC with jurisdiction to investigate and
recommend to the Florida Supreme Court the removal from office or discipline of
any judge whose conduct, during their term of office or otherwise, demonstrates a
present unfitness to hold office or warrants discipline. Fla. Const. Art. V,
§ 12(a)(1). The JQC has jurisdiction over judges regarding allegations that
misconduct occurred before or during service as a judge if a complaint is made no
later than one year following service as a justice or judge. Id. The JQC must adopt
rules regulating its proceedings. Id., § 12(a)(4). The JQC has the power to issue
subpoenas. Id. Until the investigative panel files formal charges against a judge in
the Florida Supreme Court, proceedings before the JQC are confidential. Id. Upon
a finding of probable cause and the filing of formal charges, all further proceedings
are public. Id. The JQC is divided into the investigative panel and the hearing
panel. Id., § 12(b) The investigative panel has jurisdiction to receive or initiate
complaints, conduct investigations, dismiss complaints, and submit formal charges
to the hearing panel. Id. The hearing panel has the authority to receive and hear
formal charges from the investigative panel and recommend to the Florida
Supreme Court the removal or discipline of a judge. Id. The Florida Supreme
7
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 8 of 10
Court receives recommendations from the hearing panel and may accept, reject, or
modify the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Id., § 12(c)(1).
Under the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules, a judge has the
right and reasonable opportunity to defend herself against the charges by the
introduction of evidence, to be represented by an attorney, and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses. Fla. Judicial Qualifications Comm’n Rule 15(a). The
judge also has the right to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses to testify
or produce other evidence. Id. If the hearing panel decides to recommend
discipline or the removal of a judge, it must file a copy of the recommendation,
together with a transcript and the findings and conclusions, with the Florida
Supreme Court and mail notice of the filing, along with a copy of the
recommendations, findings, and conclusions, to the judge. Fla. Judicial
Qualifications Comm’n Rule 20. If the judge is concerned about the impartiality
of a member of the hearing panel, she may submit an affidavit including the facts
stated as the basis for her concern. Fla. Judicial Qualifications Comm’n Rule
25(a). If the affidavit is supported in substance by affidavit of at least two
reputable citizens of Florida who are not related to the judge or her attorney, the
member or members accused of bias are disqualified from hearing the charges. Id.
The Florida Bar is an official arm of the Florida Supreme Court. See Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar Introduction. Under the Rules Regulating The Florida
8
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 9 of 10
Bar, although the complaining witness is not a party to the disciplinary hearing,
Bar officials must communicate case developments to the complaining party.
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 3-7.4(f), 3-7.4(i), 3-7.4(j)(2), 3-7.4(k), 3-7.5(d).
Here, as an initial matter, the JQC and Bar Officials did not waive an
absolute immunity defense during the first appeal because the district court
dismissed Watson’s first complaint without requiring a response. We hold that the
hearings before the JQC are functionally similar to those before immigration
judges, administrative law judges, and federal hearing examiners, all of which
have been extended absolute judicial immunity. It is vital that the members of the
JQC hearing panel be free from harassment or intimidation as they investigate
sitting judges; safeguards exist to ensure that no member of the hearing panel is
biased or prejudiced against the accused, the accused has the right to present
evidence and issue subpoenas, and the Florida Supreme Court can choose to
accept, reject, or modify the recommendations of the hearing panel. Similarly, we
hold that the members of the JQC investigative panel are functionally similar to
prosecutors when they present their case to the hearing panel.
The district court did not err when it dismissed Watson’s claims against the
JQC and Bar Officials because: (1) the members of the JQC investigative panel
were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity based on the functions of their
position; (2) the members of the JQC hearing panel were entitled to absolute
9
Case: 17-13940 Date Filed: 08/15/2018 Page: 10 of 10
judicial immunity based on the functions of their position; and (3) the Bar
Officials were entitled to absolute immunity as agents of the Florida Supreme
Court acting in disciplinary proceedings. See Carroll v. Gross,
984 F.2d 392, 393
(11th Cir. 1993).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
10
