Jonathan Mullane v. Federico A. Moreno
21-13468
| 11th Cir. | May 14, 2025Background
- Jonathan Mullane, a law student, was an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the Southern District of Florida while also litigating his own civil suit against Barclays Bank in the same district.
- Mullane claimed his USAO supervisor (AUSA Lehr) improperly assigned him to a matter with a potential conflict and then, with others, conspired to terminate his internship and defame him in retaliation for his workplace complaints.
- Following an incident in federal court before Judge Moreno (who was assigned to Mullane’s pro se lawsuit), Judge Moreno sent a letter to Mullane’s law school detailing concerns about Mullane’s conduct, after announcing at a hearing that he might refer the matter.
- Mullane alleged that AUSA Lehr sent defamatory information about him to legal media and to his law school, resulting in reputational harm and a withdrawn employment offer from the SEC.
- The Attorney General certified that defendants (except the judge) acted within their federal employment for purposes of immunity under the Westfall Act; the district court largely agreed and substituted the U.S. as defendant, dismissing remaining claims, with the exception of one act by Lehr that required further analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ acts fell within scope of federal duties for Westfall Act immunity | Defendants’ actions were outside scope of employment | Defendants were acting within employment scope | Most acts were within scope except Lehr’s transmission to the media |
| Whether Judge Moreno’s referral letter to law school is judicial act (entitling him to immunity) | The letter was not a judicial act since recused | Letter was judicial, per judge’s ethical duties | The letter was a judicial act; absolute judicial immunity applies |
| Whether voluntary dismissal affected appellate jurisdiction | Voluntary dismissal should allow for appeal | Dismissal eliminates claims, potentially affects appealability | Voluntary dismissal was valid; appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Standard for Westfall Act certification de novo review and act-by-act analysis | Whole course of conduct should be outside employment | Westfall applies to all acts within duties | Act-by-act analysis required; Lehr’s act to the media may fall outside |
Key Cases Cited
- Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292 (1988) (establishes scope of federal employee immunity and led to the Westfall Act)
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007) (explains Westfall Act absolute immunity and mechanism for certification)
- Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (certification subject to judicial review)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (defining judicial act and immunity for judges)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) (affirming absolute judicial immunity for judges’ acts)
- Nadler v. Mann, 951 F.2d 301 (11th Cir. 1992) (distinguishes between acts within and outside scope for Westfall Act)