Adam Hulbert v. USA, 21-11830

Pro se plaintiff Adam Hulbert sued Judge George Simpson (and the United States) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations arising from Hulbert’s divorce and child-custody proceedings and seeking $15 million.
Hulbert alleged negligence and violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including denial of procedural fairness, ignoring evidence (including alleged email hacking), and wrongful removal of his children.
The district court dismissed Hulbert’s amended complaint against Judge Simpson on the ground of absolute judicial immunity for acts taken in his judicial capacity; Hulbert abandoned any challenge to dismissal as to the United States.
Hulbert served process on Judge Simpson on August 3, 2020; Judge Simpson timely moved to dismiss on August 25, 2020, so no default judgment was warranted.
On appeal, Hulbert raised additional theories (e.g., RFRA, new factual allegations) and attacked the state-court custody judgment; the Eleventh Circuit declined to consider arguments or facts not raised in the amended complaint and noted federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court judgments under Rooker–Feldman.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal and denied Hulbert’s request for oral argument as unnecessary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial immunity	Hulbert argued Judge Simpson’s actions in the divorce/custody case violated constitutional rights and were actionable.	Simpson argued he is absolutely immune for judicial acts in Hulbert’s domestic-relations case.	Court held judge enjoys absolute immunity for judicial acts; dismissal affirmed.
Default judgment	Hulbert sought default judgment against Simpson.	Simpson showed he timely moved to dismiss after being served.	Default inappropriate because Simpson timely defended; no default judgment.
New claims/facts on appeal	Hulbert raised RFRA, injunctive relief, new factual allegations on appeal.	Simpson (and court) argued these were not in the amended complaint and cannot be considered on appeal.	Court refused to consider claims/facts raised for the first time on appeal.
Challenge to state-court judgment	Hulbert challenged the outcome of the divorce/custody proceedings in federal court.	Defendant argued federal courts lack jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman to review state-court judgments.	Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review state-court judgment; such claims are barred by Rooker–Feldman.

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (issues abandoned on appeal are forfeited)
Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2001) (de novo review standard for dismissal)
Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753 (11th Cir. 2010) (assessing clearly established violations by accepting complaint facts)
Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000) (judicial immunity applies unless judge acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction)
McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2018) (judicial immunity covers mistakes, malice, or excess authority)
Miller v. King, 449 F.3d 1149 (11th Cir. 2006) (appellate courts will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal)
Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (new factual allegations cannot be raised first on appeal)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court adjudications)
Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (federal jurisdiction does not include review of state-court judgments)