McDonald v. Griffin ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-60783
    Summary Calendar
    HOWARD C. MCDONALD, JR.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM L. GRIFFIN, JR.; JOHN
    DOE INSURANCE; AMERICAN
    CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, INC;
    JOHN DOE INSURANCE; LESLIE J.
    COOPER; DUNBAR WILLIAMS, PLLC;
    JOHN DOE INSURANCE; C. JACKSON
    WILLIAMS; ROSEMARY S. MCDONALD;
    NANCY R. EVANS,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ___________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 1:99-CV-226-D-D
    ___________________________________________
    July 25, 2000
    Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Howard C. McDonald, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil
    rights complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), based on the trial court’s determination
    that McDonald failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. McDonald’s
    complaint alleged that his ex-wife, Rosemary S. McDonald, and a number of
    individuals involved in a bitter child custody battle that is pending in Mississippi state
    court, conspired to take away his children by unlawful violations of his constitutional
    rights. Our review of the record discloses that none of the defendants are amenable to
    suit under § 1983.1
    McDonald’s claims against Special Chancellor Griffin in his official capacity are
    barred by the Eleventh Amendment because Griffin was acting as a state official.2 To
    the extent McDonald alleges claims against Griffin in his individual capacity, it is clear
    that Griffin is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suit.3 McDonald has not
    shown that Griffin’s actions were taken outside of his judicial capacity or in the
    complete absence of all jurisdiction.4 Contrary to McDonald’s argument, the district
    1
    The district court alternatively dismissed McDonald’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine which provides that “‘federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, lack
    appellate jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify final orders of state courts.’" See Weekly v.
    Morrow, 
    204 F.3d 613
    , 615 (5th Cir. 2000)(citation omitted). As the Mississippi child custody
    proceeding in question in this case is currently pending, there is no final judgment to which the
    Rooker-Feldman doctrine may apply. Despite this error, the district court’s dismissal of
    McDonald’s complaint may be affirmed on the alternative basis that none of the parties are subject
    to suit under § 1983.
    2
    Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 
    180 F.3d 234
     (5th Cir. 1999).
    3
    Krueger v. Reimer, 
    66 F.3d 75
     (5th Cir. 1995).
    4
    Malina v. Gonzales, 
    994 F.2d 1121
     (5th Cir. 1993).
    court did not abuse its discretion by granting Griffin’s motion for a stay of discovery
    pending resolution of his immunity defense.5
    The remaining defendants are not state actors and are not subject to suit under
    § 1983.6 McDonald’s conclusional allegations that the private defendants conspired
    with Special Chancellor Griffin to deprive him of his constitutional rights, absent
    reference to material facts, are insufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy.7
    The district court did not err in dismissing McDonald’s complaint for failure to
    state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Nor did the district court err or abuse
    its discretion in denying McDonald’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment
    dismissing McDonald’s complaint.
    The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
    5
    Hulsey v. Owens, 
    63 F.3d 354
     (5th Cir. 1995)(holding that absolute immunity is
    immunity from suit rather than simply a defense against liability).
    6
    Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 
    51 F.3d 512
     (5th Cir. 1995); 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    .
    7
    Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court No. 3, 
    837 F.2d 677
     (5th Cir. 1988).