Marcus Rogozinski v. Karla R. Spaulding

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-14031 MAY 8, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00949-CV-ORL-31-KRS
MARCUS ROGOZINSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KARLA R. SPAULDING,
U.S. Magistrate Judge,
CLARENCE W. COUNTS, JR.,
Federal Public Defender,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 8, 2009)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Rogozinski appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his
civil rights action, which arose out of events that occurred during his separate
criminal prosecution, against U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding and
assistant federal public defender Clarence Counts. Rogozinski brought suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971), alleging that Counts
violated his civil rights by refusing to file certain pretrial motions on his behalf in
the criminal case, that Judge Spaulding violated his civil rights by denying his
request for new counsel in that case and requiring him to submit any further
pretrial motions through Counts, and that Counts and Judge Spaulding conspired to
deny him equal access to the courts. The district court dismissed his complaint
“for reasons stated in open court” during a hearing held in Rogozinski’s criminal
case, but did not issue a written order. On appeal, Rogozinski argues that the
district court deprived him of due process due to bias and prejudice, and that the
district court erred in failing to allow him to serve his complaint on Judge
Spaulding and Counts.1
A judge is absolutely immune from suit for actions taken in her judicial
1
Rogozinzki does not address the propriety of the district court’s ruling or the fact that
no written order was entered.
2
capacity, unless she acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Sibley v. Lando,
437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005). Whether a judge’s actions were taken in her
judicial capacity depends on whether: “(1) the act complained of constituted a
normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge’s chambers or in
open court; (3) the controversy involved a case pending before the judge; and (4)
the confrontation arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in [her] judicial
capacity.” Id. Federal public defenders are also immune from civil rights suits
arising out of alleged malpractice. See Sullens v. Carroll, 446 F.2d 1392, 1392-93
(5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (holding court-appointed lawyers were immune from
malpractice suits); O’Brien v. Colbath, 465 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1972) (per
curiam) (extending Sullens to civil rights actions against public defenders in
federal prosecutions).
Judge Spaulding’s ruling on Rogozinski’s request for new counsel
constituted a normal judicial function in a case pending before her. Her actions
took place in open court and arose out of an appearance in front of her, during a
hearing on Rogozinski’s request for new counsel. Therefore, Judge Spaulding was
acting in her judicial capacity and is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
Likewise, because Rogozinski’s claim against Counts essentially alleges
malpractice in the pretrial stage of his criminal case, Counts is also immune from a
3
civil rights suit. Therefore, Rogozinski’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief
against either defendant.
AFFIRMED.
4