Melvin Blough v. Morris Silberman
702 F. App'x 927
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Melvin E. Blough sued three state appellate judges (Silberman, Crenshaw, Sleet) after they affirmed his Florida circuit court divorce judgment.
- Blough alleged the judges improperly affirmed the trial court and violated the Supremacy Clause by failing to apply federal law.
- The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the judges were shielded by judicial immunity.
- Blough appealed the dismissal, arguing the judges were not entitled to judicial immunity because their actions were improper and violated federal law.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and examined whether the judges’ actions were judicial in nature and within their jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for affirming a lower court divorce judgment | Blough: Affirming the judgment improperly violated federal law and thus should not be immune | Judges: Acts were judicial functions taken in their judicial capacity and within jurisdiction, so absolute immunity applies | Held: Affirmed — judges entitled to absolute judicial immunity |
| Whether allegations of bad faith or malice defeat judicial immunity | Blough: Even if they acted in bad faith, immunity should not apply | Judges: Bad faith or malice do not overcome judicial immunity | Held: Bad faith allegations do not defeat immunity |
| Whether lack of jurisdiction was alleged | Blough: Alleged failure to apply federal law, not lack of jurisdiction | Judges: No showing they lacked jurisdiction over the appeal | Held: No indication of lack of jurisdiction; jurisdictional exception not met |
| Proper standard of review for dismissal based on judicial immunity | Blough: (implied) dismissal improper | Judges: Dismissal appropriate under governing precedent | Held: Court reviewed de novo and found dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for dismissals based on judicial immunity)
- Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000) (judicial immunity applies unless judge acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction)
- Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1983) (factors to determine whether an act is judicial)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (definition of a judicial act and scope of judicial immunity)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (malice or bad faith does not overcome absolute judicial immunity)