Jacqueline Scott v. Mark F. Taylor
405 F.3d 1251
11th Cir.
2005
Check Treatment
Docket

*2 Before WILSON, ANDERSON and Judges, Circuit JORDAN*, District Judge.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: appeal This raises whether individual are en- titled to absolute immunity from official capacity suits for prospective relief. The district court denied tor defendants’ motion judgment on the pleadings, holding that legislative immuni- ty apply does not to such suits. Because the state legislators are entitled to abso- lute immunity, we reverse and remand with instructions they be dis- missed.

* Jordan, Honorable Adalberto United sitting by States designation. Judge Florida, for the Southern District discovery, Appellants close After I.BACKGROUND answer amend moved successfully ‍​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‍Dem- Scott, a white Jacqueline Appellee immu- defense include County Commis- DeKalb ocrat, a former moved simultaneously They nity. representative served She sioner. *3 on their based pleadings the on judgment 1991- from district third county’s the of legislative answer, arguing amended As- General Georgia 2002, the In 2002. for suits immunity bars a adopted 401,” which “Act sembly рassed declaratory relief and injunctive DeKalb for the map district new issued The district legislators. of area the Act Under Commission. for motion Appellants’ denying order was resides Scott County where DeKalb Appellants’ pleadings. the on to judgment and added three district removed is now order of interlocutory appeal incum- her thereby lost Scott five. district court.2 three, this she was and before district in status bent in the No- Commission the elected to REVIEW OF II.STANDARD elections. vember July, in for complaint of a motion her denial filed the review We out moved was that she de novo. Can- it, alleged pleadings she In judgment to achieve effort Beach, in an the third Palm of City West non v. of and Cir.2001). black Commission majority Judgment (11th. 1299, 1301 discrimination racial wrongful there when constituted appropriate is pleadings named She § 1983. 42 U.S.C. violated and dispute in facts material are no of Governor Lieutenant Taylor, Mark aas judgment entitled moving party (since exchanged Murphy Tom Georgia, alleged All facts law. Id. of matter Richardson1), Speaker Glenn true as accepted must complaint Stan Representatives, House Georgia’s favorable most light in the viewed DeKalb Chairperson Watson, Id. party. nonmoving Nadine Delegation, County House DeKalb Chairperson Thomas, the III.DISCUSSION defendants. as Delegation, County Senate Court’s Supreme believe (“Appellаnts”) defendants of these four All Virginia Supreme capacities. their official sued were controlling Union Consumers the De- a defendant as named Scott also 719, 100 S.Ct. case. and Voter of Elections County Board Kalb Union, (1980). In Consumers Elections”). She (“Board of Registration challenge §a brought plaintiffs declaratory and sought promulgated rules disciplinary attorney an award as as claim well § 1983 her (‘Virginia Virginia Court of 42 U.S.C. pursuant attorney’s fees at 1969. Court”). Id. Aсt dispute did § 1988. She Court’s Virginia named complaint the state’s part of as enacted was individual in his justice chief acted Appellants and that process in- declaratory and capacities capacities. interlocutory appealable directly ais 2. This par- aas substituted was Richardson Glenn effectively immunity order, 26(d)(1), which to Fed.R.Civ.P. ty pursuant proceed are forced defendants if lost substitution automatic provides for County Bd. Ellis а trial. Coffee an action party is a who public officer Cir. Registrars, dur- in office capacity is succeeded an official 1993). action. ing pendency junctive relief. Id. 100 S.Ct. at official legislative capacities3 and seeking 1971. One of the issues before the Su- declaratory injunctive relief. preme Court was whether the Virginia Scott seeks to distinguish Consumers Court and its chief entitled Union arguing that the Supreme Court any sort of immunity. 721,100 Id. at did not distinguish personаl between at 1969. official capacity actions when discussing After concluding that the Virginia Court legislative immunity.4 Appellee relies on acted capacity when pro- Kentucky Graham, mulgating the challenged rules, the Su- S.Ct. 3099, 87 preme Court turned to its im- Graham, the Court emphasized prac- “the *4 munity analysis. Id. at 100 S.Ct. at tical and doctrinal differences between 1974. The Court noted that legisla- “state personal and official capacity actions.” Id. tors enjoy common law immunity from lia- at 105 S.Ct. at 3105. key One differ- bility for their legislative acts, an immunity ence between individual and capaci- official that is similar in origin and rationale to ty suits is the available defenses. Id. The that accorded Congressmen under the Court noted a government official Speech or Debate Clause.” Id. at 100 sued in his individual capacity may be S.Ct. at 1974. This immunity was not entitled to personal various immunity de- abrogated by § ‍​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‍1983, and it applies with fenses. Id. However, because an official equal force to suits seeking damages and capacity suit against government official those seeking declaratory re- is generally treated as a suit against the lief. Id. 732-33, at at 1974-75. underlying governmental entity, such per- There could be doubt,” “little the Court sonal immunity defenses are unavailable. concluded, that the plaintiffs could not Id. 165-67, 105 S.Ct. at 3105-06. have maintained their “against suit this regard, the court stated: legislaturе, [state] its committees, or mem- In an official-capacity action, these de- bers.” Id. at 100 S.Ct. at 1975. The fenses are unavailable .... The only Court then that, held state immunities that can be claimed in an tures and their members are immune to official-capacity action are forms of suit, sov- “the Virginia Court and its members ereign immunity that entity, qua [were] immune to suit when in acting their entity, may possess, such as the legislative Elev- capacity.” Id. at enth Amendment. at 1976. The square holding of Consum- ers Id. Union applies (citations with full here; force omitted). these state legislator defendants enjoy leg- islative immunity protecting them from a relies the foregoing language in suit challenging their actions taken their Graham in arguing that the instant action 3. Scott challenges here these defendants' ac- legislative immunity in both his individual only tions capacity. In- capacities. However, official it is clear deed, it is undisputed that thesе defendants that the Court’s holding applied in both ca- have no role at all with to the enforce- pacities. As above, noted in the text the chief ment implementation of the challenged justice was sued in capacities, both and the voting districts. Court held that he was entitled to immunity. Had Court intended acknowledge limit that the Consumers Union its holding Court, justice’s chief particular portion individual capacity, dealing that would with pending left immunity, did not plaintiffs’ explicit make claim; official capacity however, reference to the fact that the chief court clearly of Virginia left no Court such claim pending. was entitled legislator defendants in their official in their official sues the as a action capacities—is not be treated these defendants there- capacity and that Therefore, entity. general immuni- not entitled fore are applicable. is not rule of Graham Scott’s ty, personal defense. exception important an appreciate fails to reasons, holding For these our opinion’s general rule. Graham Union, controlled Consumers entirely In consistent Graham. stated, per theAs Graham Court deed, Supreme Court Graham dis generally unavailable sonal defenses are expressly approved Con cussed such suits capacity suits because holding Court’s sumers Union underlying as suits treated justice was Virginia Court’s chief entity. Id. at 105 S.Ct. at 3105-06. legislative immunity protected absolute however, from exception, The is derived capacity pro sued in his official Young, 209 Ex Parte ethics code that vio ‍​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‍ mulgating attorney (1908), 52 L.Ed. held that which lated the First Amendment. prospective suits stated: Graham enforcing enjoin un state officials *5 Supreme much in recognized as are not deemed to constitutional acts be There, a Virginia, supra. Court of arе not against the state thus suits District Court had found the three-judge In by the Eleventh Amendment.5 barred its Virginia Supreme Court and chief deed, recognized itself this in a Graham capacity in his liable for official passage quoted appended footnote amend, promulgating, and to refusing That in relevant above. footnote stated the First State Bar Code that violated part: court also Amendment. The district a state has waived its Unless against awarded fеes these defendants has immunity Congress Amendment pursuant to We held abso- 1988. it, a state cannot be sued overridden defendants lute shielded these regardless own name directly its capaci- acts taken their for Thus, implemen- .... the relief ty- policy of state or custom be tation (emphasis id at S.Ct. only reached federal court added). Thus, nothing Graham under- official-capacity prospective actions for holding in Consumers Union. mines against are not treated as actions relief Union, we hold that Following Consumers Young. Ex Parte See State. in the instant legislator defendants Graham, capacity prospective S.Ct. at suit for relief Thus, immunity.6 Ac- 14. instant action— are entitled to absolute 3106 n. Pennsylvania, against Larsen v. Senate prospective relief these cord seeking disagree. Scott’s reli- against leg- Union. We If actions Consumers misplaced same ance on Umbehr against were treated as actions islators with Con- that Graham is consistent state, reasons by they Elev- would be barred states' primary disposing After sumers Union. immunity. sovereign enth independent contrac- issue before it—whether Graham, S.Ct. at 473 U.S. 167 n. enjoyed the same with at-will contracts tors 3106 n. 14. speech protection free First Amendment single unexplained suggests county employees— that a as did retaliation summarily Supreme in Board Commissioners v. Court Umbehr dis- sentence Umbehr, arguments posed of other asserted commissioners, including a (1996), holding county overrules the (3d Cir.1998) (follow- injunction 252-54 whether for an or damages, cre- ing holding Consumers Union and ates a [legislators] distraction and forces declaratory time, senators sued and divert energy, their and attention in their official capacities tasks to defend the ” protected legislative immunity). litigation.’ (quoting Eastland United Fund, States Servicemen’s 421 U.S. being addition consistent with 1813, 1821, prior Supreme opinions, holding our (1975))). The purpose immu- purposes legisla is consistent with the nity being to free from such immunity. Court has distractions, worries and it makes sense to legislative immunity noted that “would be apply capac- the doctrine regardless of the legislators] if of little value [state could be ity in which a state legislator is sued. subjected to the cost and inconvenience upon distractions of trial finally a conclu We turn our attention Scott’s pleader, sion of the toor the hazard that applying legislative immuni- judgment against them jury’s ty based on a would case leave her with no speculation to motives.”7 Tenney v. alleged recourse for the discrimination she Brandhove, 367, 377, 341 U.S. suffered. This is not so. Scott is free to 788, 95 L.Ed. 1019 Appel While maintain her suit the Board of subjected any lants would judg Indeed, Elections. the Board of Elections ment in this case and would not defendant this case which themselves, bear cost of defending any has role with to the relief they face Scott, i.e., would still the not sought by inconsiderable prospective relief inconveniences and distractions of a trial. seeking enjoin the enforcement of the *6 Union, See Consumers 446 U.S. at challenged voting district and a declaration (“ action, at 1975 private ‘[A] civil as legality.8 above, to its As noted the immunity argument. The capacities, Court stated that or individual and we thus cannot legislative the immunity claim was moot be- be sure whether there is tension between Bo- capacity cause against official gan claims the and the one-sentence inference in Um- commissioners event, were before the Court. To the any behr. In we are not concerned in implies extent that this that capacity official legislators, this case with local and therefore against are entity legis- claims claims the and we dаy relating leave to another issues unavailable, immunity lative it is neverthe- scope legislative and breadth of their immuni- help less no to Scott. Umbehr involved a ty- capacity against 1983 official claim local governmental Accordingly, gen- pause officials. the Appellants' here to note that al- applied eral rule whereby legedly of Graham improper the offi- enacting motives in Act 401 cial claim towas be treated aas are irrelevant respect determining with the against entity personal claim the and applicability immuni- legislative immunity. of See El- Umbehr, ties would not be available. County like lis v. Registrars, Bd. 981 F.2d Coffee of Graham, entirely (11th Cir.1993) consistent with the hold- ("[A]ny subjective ing of Consumers Union. motivations are irrelevant to absolute reason, immunity.”). tive For this we Appel- need not address foregoing lants' implication that the superceded by Bogan Umbehr has been peсuliarity 8. One of this case is the fact that Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. Scott no seeks actual relief these state Bogan legislator It is true that defendants. The relief Scott seeks squarely legislators held that local pertains are entitled implementa- enforcement and protection district; legislative of absolute challenged immu- of voting tion the un- nity However, for ‍​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‍their disputed activities. legislator fact is that these defen- the Court’s is not clear as absolutely to whether play dants have no role to in that legislators Thus, the local regard. sued in their extremely it is doubtful that not reach legislators, no role defendants legislator immunity. of question the vot- of implementation enforcement will she involving prevail, Medical, case Should ing district. In Summit she statute, relief of all obtain abortion able to partial-birth Alabama’s still Bd. interloc- Cobb See, Smith e.g., with presented was seeks. Court Registrations, officiаls Alabama various Elections utory appeal (de- (N.D.Ga.2002) de- immunity Amendment F.Supp.2d Eleventh whose Cobb rejected. plans districting had claring district fense Amend- unconstitutional raising the County Commission addition elections that county board asserted the officials enjoining appeal, ment on in accordance at 1334. Id. standing. conducting elections lacked plaintiffs an Eleventh them). noting Court, The with appeal- was claim CONCLUSION IV. under judgment a final able withоut doctrine, explained legislators are order collateral Appellants Because justiciabili- capacities, to dismiss a motion denial acted who “We so reviewable: not grounds to absolute was ty entitled they are standing does regardless This is true conclude immunity. doctrine, order prospec- the collateral damages or fit within seeks suit whether officials] therefore, Alabama [the and, of whether regardless immediate take right individ- in their named Id. issue.” on this appeal interlocutory The capacity. ual held, relying also REVERSED 1334-35. therefore order court’s it would Moniz, 145 F.3d instructions REMANDED part to consider its discretion Appellants. not exercise claims all dismiss pen- doctrine under standing issue REMANDED. REVERSED Med- Summit jurisdiction. appellate dent 1335-36. ical, concurring: JORDAN, Judge, District *7 preclude Moniz Medical If Summit which opinion, the Court’s I concur justiciabili- a threshold addressing fromus immu doctrine holds interlocu- in an standing such ty issue Scott of Ms. claims nity bars Court, I think like tory appeal itWere legislators. —aiid individual reexam- be should cases they do—those Associ Medical however, Summit for not, en sitting Circuit Eleventh by the (11th ined 1326 F.3d 180 Pryor, ates, v. P.C. that while example, Imagine, banc. Ft. Laud City v. Cir.1999), Moniz legis- Georgia appeal, onwas Cir.1998), this case I (11th 1278 F.3d erdale, 145 gave somehow law that passed lature Ms. on based appeal dismiss would she relief she Ms. Scott standing with III Article lack Scott’s denial court's of the locutory appeal prong of third satisfy the could analogous con an immunity. likeli- substantial requirements standing —a Associates, Medical text, in Summit this court by a be redressed injury could that her hood Cir.1999), (11th F.3d 1326 Pryor, 180 v. P.C. de- legislator these decision favorable on based interlocutory appeal an held Hays, 515 v. States United See fendants. not immunity would 2435, 2431, 742-43, 737, 115 S.Ct. aon jurisdiction appellate pendant support However, precedent our dе do not Accordingly, we standing issue. standing address we should suggests that standing issue. cide án inter- case is instant appeal. The filed Suppose suit. further that the par- III jurisdiction Court, of this and the ties did not advise us of this development below, courts not to the merits of the because, reasons, for their own they want- case.”). toed obtain definitive appellate ruling on Legislative immunity is an affirmative legislative immunity. If we learned defense which can forfeited, be waived or legislation new own, our we would have and, raised, unless does affect the pow no choice inquire but to mootness, toas er of a federal court to adjudicate. See, least any insofar as claims for e.g., Kingman Park Civic Ass’n v. relief were concerned. See generally Pa- Williams, (D.C.Cir. 1033, F.3d Ins. Co. v. General Dev. Corp., 28 cific 2003) (mayor waived (11th 1093, Cir.1994) (an F.3d appel- by expressly disavowing it in the district late court “must consider mootness sua court); Pоwell Ridge, 520, and, sponte absent applicable exception (3d Cir.2001) (Roth, J., concurring) (“legis doctrine, mootness [it] must dismiss lative immunity may waived”); be Frater any appeal that longer no presents a viable nal Order Police v. City Hobart, 864 case or controversy”). It would not mat- 551, (7th Cir.1988) F.2d (by failing to ter that mootness cannot independently be invoke immunity in the district subject of an interlocutory appeal un- court, members of city counsel waived that der the collateral order See, doctrine. e.g., defense). Indeed, sometimes Brooks Georgia Elections, Bd. who are sued decide to forego legislative 1114, Cir.1995) (dis- 1118-19 immunity and defend on See, the merits. missing interlocutory appeal under 28 e.g., Bush, Martinez 1292(a)(1) F.Supp.2d U.S.C. grounds). mootness 1275, (S.D.Fla.2002) (three-judge Standing should be no different. Feder- court) (Florida case). redistricting What al have, courts in the words of the Su- that, means is in deciding preme Court, an “independent obligation of legislative immunity, we are reaching to examine their own jurisdiction, and the merits of the ease. But according to standing is perhaps import most precedent, that is not per jurisdictional doctrines.” United States v. missible. Steel Co. v. Citizens Hays, 515 U.S. Environment, Better (1995) (internal 132 L.Ed.2d 635 quo- 1012-13, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 omitted). tations A federal (1998) (rejecting doctrine of “hypothetical able choose which of various “case or jurisdiction,” under which a federal court controversy” concerns will first, address could assume it subject-matter had juris e.g., Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. diction for the purpose of 815, 831, deciding the 144 L.Ed.2d *8 merits). One might tempted be (1999) 715 to argue (taking up statutory standing that immunity is before one of those Article III standing), but it must threshold issues that a court can resolve all such neverthe concerns before reaching less consider the merits. before addressing See whether a Arizonans for Official “case or English Arizona, controversy” v. 43, 520 exists under 66, Article 117 — 1055, S.Ct. III. 1068, Doe, See Tenet v. 137 (1997) U.S. -, 125 (“We ‍​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‍1230, 1235 S.Ct. the question resolve n. (2005) L.Ed.2d whether 82 there remains a live (explaining case or that a controversy federal court can choose with respect to Yniguez’s among claim grounds without threshold preclude to con first determining whether AOE merits). or Park sideration of the problem The has standing to appeal because the with former is that the Supreme question, latter, like the goes to the Article Court has not treated immunity as one of

1259 within and defendants] tween v. In Calderon himself issues. threshold those Warth III.” Article] meaning 1694, 745, 740, Ashmus, 523 U.S. 2197, 498, 95 S.Ct. Seldin, 422 U.S. (1998), a case L.Ed.2d 1697-98, 140 add (1975) (emphasis 2205, L.Ed.2d Amendment of Eleventh a claim involving officials against ed). Thus, in a suit officials, by state not does relief, plaintiff a a whether decide had to ruled to respect standing with III Article have ana before controversy” existed or “case reme to powerless are who officials those immunity, Amendment lyzing R.S. Linda See injury. alleged dy thе non- case dismissed ultimately and 616-18, D., 410 U.S. Richard complaint justiciable (1973); Ok 1147-49, L.Ed.2d judgment. declaratory advisory an 405, 426-27 Foster, palobi h immunity, Elevent Like banc). id. (en also Cir.2001) See “coextensive immunity is (injunction concurring) J., (Higginbotham, power judicial limitations meaning “utterly is against n. III,” id. Article if the purposes” practical “all less” an alterna is not my view and the as redress to power “no has us permits issue threshold legislators injuries”). serted ex standing. As avoid authority enforcement not have do case Article lack below, Ms. Scott’s plained conducting elec involved legislators to the respect standing with III role Their County. in DeKalb tions Const., dispositive. Ga. making law. limited seq. et § 28-1-1 VI; Ill, § O.C.G.A. Art. litigant a standing, have In order there them running injunction An (i.e., a fact injury in demonstrate must Scott. Ms. help nothing to do would fore or immi- and actual “concrete harm extraordinary de Furthermore, an even “fairly (i.e., trace[able] nent”), causation to votе ordering the cree ... injury alleged between connection ineffec 401 would Act amend or repeal defendant”), conduct alleged themselves, are legislators, tive, for the likeli- (i.e. “substantial redressability there Ms. laws.1 pass powerless remedy will requested hood prong redressability satisfy the fore cannot Agency injury”). Vermont alleged standing with III Article rel. ex States v. United Resources Natural her dismiss should we legislators, Stevens, 529 U.S. ground. them on claims (intеrnal (2000) Moniz, Medical of Summit Standing, Because rearranged). marks quotation advisory essentially issued fit we have or congruence moreover, concerns panel immunity.2 A defendants. plaintiff between discretion however, not, dimension, should standing “In its constitutional controversy” re- “case a core bypass plaintiff whether justiciability: imports just standing III Article like quirement be- controversy’ ‘case or out made has con overruling *9 decision Supremе Court such suggest that mean do not I Provenzano, See, e.g., re flicting it. issued, merely legally could directive Cir.2000). (11th 1233, F.3d why Ms. explain example use in Arizonans decisions Of Supreme Court standing. lacks Ashmus, En Better Citizens English, ficial Medical. predate Summit vironment, and Ortiz Circuit, is bound panel In the binding. result, Medical Summit aAs intervening anis there unless decision prior because the appeal is interlocutory in na

ture. “Without jurisdiction, the court can

not proceed at in any all case. Jurisdiction power

is the to declare law, and when

it ceases to exist, the only function remain

ing for the court is that of announcing that fact and dismissing the case.” parte Ex

McCardle, (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19

L.Ed. 264 Like other circuits, this

Court should ensure that there is Article

III standing before resolving issues of

Eleventh Amendment, sovereign, absolute,

or qualified immunity in interlocutory ap

peals. See, e.g., Webb v. City Dallas, (5th 790-91 Cir.2002); Price Akaka, 1223-24 Cir. 1993).

UNITED STATES of America,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Jose Rolando GARCIA, Leonardo Anto-

nio Enriquez-Valdes, a.k.a. Leo, Al- Artires,

berto Enicio Mercado, Defen-

dants-Appellants.

No. 03-10350.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

April 13, 2005.