Melvin Blough v. Nick Nazaretian
704 F. App'x 820
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Melvin Blough, pro se, sued three Florida state judges (Sheehan, Lee, Nazaretian), a federal district judge (Moody), and two court clerks under § 1983 and Bivens for alleged due‑process violations arising from his Florida divorce case.
- In a separate federal suit, Judge Moody dismissed Blough’s claims against two state judges as barred by judicial immunity.
- In the state divorce proceeding Blough repeatedly argued federal law (including the Uniformed Services Former Spouse’s Protection Act) preempted Florida divorce law; state judges denied hearings, limited argument to state law, and entered a final divorce judgment under Florida law.
- Blough then sued the state judges in federal court alleging that their failure to recognize federal preemption deprived him of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the state judges under Rooker‑Feldman and that Judge Moody was entitled to absolute judicial immunity; Blough conceded dismissal of claims against the clerks on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction over claims vs. state judges challenging state‑court divorce judgment | Blough: judges erred by applying Florida law instead of federal law; federal court may hear constitutional claims | Defendants: Rooker‑Feldman bars federal review of state‑court judgments | Court: Rooker‑Feldman applies; federal courts lack jurisdiction because success would require overturning state judgment |
| Whether Judge Moody is immune from damages for dismissing Blough’s federal suit | Blough: Moody’s dismissal of state‑judge claims violated rights and is actionable | Moody: entitled to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts | Court: Moody had judicial immunity; acted in judicial capacity and not in clear absence of jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court’s sua sponte dismissal without prior notice requires reversal | Blough: district court should have given notice before dismissing for failure to state a claim | District court: dismissal proper because defects were incurable by amendment | Court: failure to give notice was error in procedure but harmless because amendment could not cure legal defects |
| Whether claims against court clerks stated a claim | Blough: asserted claims against clerks (Kuenzel, Tomasino) | Clerks: dismissal appropriate for failure to state a claim | Court: Blough conceded dismissal on appeal; district court’s dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (jurisdictional rule precluding lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (clarifies Rooker doctrine’s application to state‑court losers seeking review in federal district court)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes implied damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity protects judges for acts within judicial capacity)
- Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir.) (explains absolute judicial immunity standard)
- Alvarez v. Attorney General for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir.) (applies and explains Rooker‑Feldman’s “inextricably intertwined” test)