PEPE v. SHENKO
3:25-cv-00709
| N.D. Fla. | Jun 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Pepe filed suit in the Northern District of Florida against Judge James Shenko based on actions allegedly taken by Judge Shenko in a case over which he presided.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the case on the grounds of absolute judicial immunity shielding the defendant (a sitting judge) from liability for acts within his judicial capacity.
- Plaintiff objected to the recommendation, filed a late objection, a premature notice of appeal, and a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
- The District Court conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff's objections, finding that the allegations made by the plaintiff were conclusory and insufficient to overcome judicial immunity.
- The court denied all plaintiff's post-R&R motions, dismissed the case with prejudice, and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis, certifying any appeal as frivolous.
- The court ordered the case closed and entered judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity | Shenko exceeded jurisdiction, enabling fraud; immunity shouldn't apply | Acts fell within judicial function and are protected | Defendant entitled to absolute immunity; case dismissed |
| Timeliness of filings | Filing was late but should be excused | No relevant order existed | No order to show cause; late filing denied |
| Prematurity of appeal | Sought to appeal R&R | R&R not a final appealable order | Notice of appeal stricken |
| Leave to appeal IFP | Sought to appeal without paying fee | Case was frivolous, not in good faith | Leave to proceed IFP on appeal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Conclusory allegations do not suffice to overcome judicial immunity.)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not accepted as true.)
- Coppage v. United States, 386 U.S. 438 (1962) (An appeal is in good faith only if it raises a non-frivolous issue.)
- Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2001) (An issue is frivolous if it lacks arguable merit in law or fact.)
- Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir. 1993) (Frivolous appeal is one with little or no chance of success.)