Sykes v. Wilkes Doc.

4
Case 3:06-cv-00783-HES-TEM Document 4 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

DONALD L. SYKES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:06-cv-783-J-20TEM

JUDGE WILLIAM A. WILKES,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal s who is

proceeding se, mailed a pleading entitled "This Motion a
Complaint is for the United States Attorney" (Doc. #1) (hereinafter

Complaint) to "The United States Attorney [ ' s] Office [ , ] Clerk of

the court"' on August 25, 2006. Because the style of the pleading

states, in pertinent part, "United State[s] District Court Middle

District of Florida," the United State's Attorney's Office

forwarded the Complaint to this Court. This Court construes the

Complaint as a prisoner civil rights action because Plaintiff

contends that the sole Defendant, the Honorable William A. Wilkes,

violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights when he presided over

Plaintiff's criminal case in state court. Plaintiff "is asking

this Court for emergency suspension of Judge Wilkes[.Iw Complaint

at 8. He also requests that Judge Wilkes be impeached. Id. at 10.

The envelope containing the Complaint has been placed on the left
side of the case file.

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 3:06-cv-00783-HES-TEM Document 4 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 2 of 3

On April 26, 1996, the President of the United States signed

into law the Prison Litigation Reform Act (hereinafter PLRA). The
PLRA requires the Court to screen Plaintiff's case to determine

whether the Complaint should be dismissed on the basis that it is

frivolous or malicious, it fails to state claim upon which relief

may be granted, or it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) . 2

The Court notes that judges are absolutely immune from damages

for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial

capacity, provided such acts are not done in clear absence of all

jurisdiction. Bolin v. Storv, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir.

2000); Simmons v. Conoer, 86 F.3d 1080, 1084-85 (11th Cir. 1996).

This immunity applies even if the judge's acts are in error,

malicious, or were in excess of his jurisdiction. S t u m ~ v.

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). Because Plaintiff challenges

the actions taken by the Defendant while he was conducting judicial

proceedings, it is clear he is absolutely immune from suit in

performing these judicial responsibilities. Sun v. Forrester, 939

F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted), cert. denied,

503 U.S. 921 (1992). Thus, insofar as Plaintiff may be seeking

Plaintiff has not filed a request to proceed as a pauper, nor has

he paid the $350.00 filing fee. The Court notes that § 1915A authorizes
the screening and dismissal of prisoner lawsuits regardless of the
prisoner litigant's fee status. See Plunk v. Givens, 234 F.3d 1128,
1129 (10th Cir. 2000) ("this court joins the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and
Seventh Circuits in holding that S 1915A applies to all prison litigants,
without regard to their fee status, who bring civil suits against a
governmental entity, officer, or employee").
 Case 3:06-cv-00783-HES-TEM Document 4 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 3 of 3

m o n e t a r y damages a g a i n s t t h e D e f e n d a n t , i t i s c l e a r t h e D e f e n d a n t

i s immune f r o m s u c h r e l i e f .

F u r t h e r m o r e , e v e n i f P l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t s e e k m o n e t a r y damages

a g a i n s t t h e Defendant, it i s n o t w i t h i n t h i s C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o g r a n t t h e s p e c i f i c r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d i n t h e Complaint. Clearly,

t h i s C o u r t d o e s n o t h a v e t h e power t o s u s p e n d o r impeach a s t a t e

c o u r t judge. Thus, P l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which

r e l i e f may b e g r a n t e d .

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s c a s e w i l l b e d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U . S. C .

§ 1915(A) .
A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s now

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED :

1. T h i s c a s e i s h e r e b y DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. The C l e r k o f t h e C o u r t s h a l l e n t e r judgment d i s m i s s i n g

t h i s case without prejudice.

3. The C l e r k o f t h e C o u r t s h a l l c l o s e t h i s c a s e .

DONE AND ORDERED a t J a c k s o n v i l l e , F l o r i d a , t h i s 7<d a y of

September, 2006. /-

ps 9/6
c:
Donald L. S y k e s