Hermon Tywon Williams v. Judge Elizabeth A. Scherer
669 F. App'x 968
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hermon Williams, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Florida state-court Judge Elizabeth Scherer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages based on rulings in his pending state criminal cases, including denials of his requests to represent himself.
- The district court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)/(iii) on the ground that Judge Scherer was immune from monetary damages.
- The dismissal was based on judicial-immunity principles rather than on merits of Williams’s underlying criminal matters.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the § 1915 dismissal de novo and construed Williams’s pro se filings liberally.
- The court evaluated whether the challenged acts were "judicial" and whether Judge Scherer acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction.
- The panel concluded the challenged rulings were judicial acts within the judge’s jurisdiction, so absolute judicial immunity barred Williams’s § 1983 damages claim; the dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state judge is immune from § 1983 money damages for rulings in pending criminal cases | Williams contended Scherer’s rulings (e.g., denying self-representation) violated his constitutional rights and supported damages | Scherer (and the court) argued the acts were judicial and protected by absolute judicial immunity | Judicial immunity applies; claims for money damages barred |
| Whether the judge acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction, defeating immunity | Williams implied the rulings were unlawful and thus actionable | Court found no allegations showing Scherer acted in clear absence of jurisdiction | No showing of clear absence of jurisdiction; immunity stands |
| Whether § 1983 may be used to collaterally attack state-court criminal judgments via damages suit | Williams sought to litigate criminal-case merits through § 1983 | Court: § 1983 is not a substitute for direct collateral review of state judgments | § 1983 cannot be used for collateral review; improper vehicle |
| Whether sua sponte dismissal under § 1915 was appropriate without the defense pleaded | Williams had not anticipated dismissal on immunity grounds | Court noted immunity can support sua sponte dismissal when defense is an obvious bar from the complaint’s allegations | Sua sponte dismissal appropriate under § 1915(e)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming that judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages for judicial acts absent clear absence of jurisdiction)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (judicial immunity does not protect administrative or nonjudicial acts; immunity applies to judicial acts)
- Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard of de novo review for § 1915 dismissals and liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1983) (factors for determining whether an act is "judicial" include the nature of the act and the setting in which it occurred)