Anthony I. Provitola v. Dennis L. Comer, 21-10878

Background

Provitola (Florida attorney) sued Comer in state court after Comer blocked a public road with a gate; Frank Ford represented Comer.
State trial judge Upchurch dismissed Provitola’s claims (without prejudice), called his summary-judgment motion “without support,” and awarded Comer attorney’s fees; Upchurch later recused.
On reassignment Judge Rowe dismissed Provitola’s amended complaint with prejudice, denied relief, and entered a final fee judgment; the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal and fee award on appeal.
Provitola then filed a federal amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 alleging Comer and Ford conspired with state judges to deprive him of due process and asking that the state-court actions be declared null and relief granted that was denied in state court.
The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, citing Florida’s litigation privilege (absolute immunity), lack of state-action allegations, and the Rooker–Feldman doctrine; Provitola appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal on Rooker–Feldman grounds, remanded to correct the judgment to show dismissal without prejudice, and denied defendants’ sanctions motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court had jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman	Provitola characterized claims as federal constitutional violations seeking damages and relief against defendants, not an attack on the state judgment	Defendants argued the complaint asked the federal court to overturn/void state-court rulings and therefore was barred	Court held Rooker–Feldman bars the suit because resolving claims would require negating the state-court judgments; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether Florida’s litigation privilege grants absolute immunity to Comer and Ford	Provitola argued defendants’ actions were wrongful conspiracies with judges, not protected litigation activity	Defendants argued their statements and actions occurred in regular course of litigation and are shielded by Florida’s absolute litigation privilege	Court did not reach the merits because jurisdictional bar was dispositive
Whether Comer and Ford are state actors under § 1983	Provitola alleged defendants acted jointly with and in concert with judges to deprive him of due process	Defendants argued they were private actors and not state actors for § 1983 purposes	Court did not decide because Rooker–Feldman jurisdictional bar was dispositive
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice	Provitola sought reversal of district court’s with-prejudice dismissal	Defendants supported dismissal on the merits and sought final judgment	Court held dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice and remanded to correct the judgment

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishes that federal district courts cannot act as appellate tribunals to review state-court judgments)
D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits lower federal-court review of state-court decisions concerning bar admission and similar matters)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (explains Rooker–Feldman applies when party seeks federal review and rejection of state-court judgment)
Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206 (11th Cir. 2021) (clarifies that the relief sought determines whether Rooker–Feldman applies)
May v. Morgan County Ga., 878 F.3d 1001 (11th Cir. 2017) (discusses how state-judgment-based injuries trigger Rooker–Feldman)
Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2008) (dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice)