Filed: Dec. 10, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12386 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 10, 2010 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-61900-MGC DR. MASSOOD JALLALI, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff Appellant, versus STATE OF FLORIDA, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, GRACE M. MURILLO, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants Appellees. _ Appeal from t
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12386 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 10, 2010 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-61900-MGC DR. MASSOOD JALLALI, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff Appellant, versus STATE OF FLORIDA, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, GRACE M. MURILLO, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants Appellees. _ Appeal from th..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12386 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 10, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-61900-MGC
DR. MASSOOD JALLALI,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services,
GRACE M. MURILLO,
JOHN DOE,
JANE DOE,
FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 10, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case stems from the decision of the District Court of Appeal of Florida
reversing a money judgment in favor of appellant Massood Jallali against Nova
Southeastern University. Jallali v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., 992 So. 2d
338 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2008).1 After losing the appeal, Jallali sued the State of
Florida, the district court of appeal, and Grace Murillo, one of the court’s law
clerks, seeking a money judgment under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Jallali
alleged that the State and the court denied him his constitutional right of access to
the courts because the court’s judges and Murillo failed to recuse as required by
Florida law because they had a conflict of interest. The district court dismissed his
complaint, as amended, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the
Eleventh Amendment barred the suit against the State and the court and that
Murillo had judicial immunity. Jallali now appeals. We affirm.
1
The court described Jallali’s claim and the judgment he received thusly:
Massood Jallali, a student in the Osteopathic Medical Program, sued Nova
Southeastern University for breach of an implied contract. The suit alleged that
Jallali had satisfied the terms and conditions for graduation from Nova's
osteopathic program, but that the university refused to confer a degree upon him.
Jallali sought reimbursement for $250,000 in tuition costs, lost earnings while in
school of $836,869, and lost future earnings of $6,900,000. A jury returned a
verdict for $819,000.
Jallali, 9921 So. 2d at 993.
2
I.
The Eleventh Amendment states: “The Judicial power of the United States
shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by
Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme
Court has interpreted the Amendment as evidence that sovereign immunity,
derived from “the structure of the original Constitution itself,” protects a state
from suit not only by citizens of other states, but by its own citizens as well. Alden
v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 727-29,
119 S. Ct. 2240, 2254-55,
144 L. Ed. 2d 636
(1999). Consequently, federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear private suits for
damages against a state unless (1) the state has explicitly consented to suit in
federal court, thus waiving its sovereign immunity, or (2) Congress has
specifically abrogated the state’s immunity. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v.
Feeney,
495 U.S. 299, 304-06,
110 S. Ct. 1868, 1872-73,
109 L. Ed. 2d 264 (1990).
The State of Florida and the district court of appeal are protected by
sovereign immunity. Because none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity
apply, the district court properly dismissed Jallali’s complaint against them.
II.
Judges are absolutely immune from suit, even if they acted in error,
3
maliciously, or in excess of jurisdiction, unless they acted outside their judicial
capacity or in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067,
1070 (11th Cir. 2005). Absolute judicial immunity extends not only to judges, but
to other persons whose “official duties have an integral relationship with the
judicial process.” Roland v. Phillips,
19 F.3d 552, 555 (11th Cir. 1994). Because
drafting an appellate court opinion is an inherently judicial activity, a law clerk
enjoys absolute immunity in doing so. See
Sibley, 473 F.3d at 1071.
By helping draft an appellate opinion, Murillo engaged in judicial activity.
Therefore, she possessed absolute immunity, and the district court did not err in
dismissing Jallili’s complaint against her.
AFFIRMED.
4
