Opinion
Case No. 2D17-5152
04-26-2019
Herman JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Herman Jones, Avon Park, pro se. Sean M. Conahan and Kathryn E. Collier, of Fulmer, LeRoy & Albee, PLLC, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
Herman Jones, Avon Park, pro se.
Sean M. Conahan and Kathryn E. Collier, of Fulmer, LeRoy & Albee, PLLC, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
COHEN, J.
Herman Jones appeals the order dismissing his civil tort action pursuant to general law and section 768.28, Florida Statutes (2016), against Catherine L. Combee, Circuit Court Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit for Polk County, Florida. We affirm.
The Florida Supreme Court specially assigned the Fifth District Court of Appeal to sit as the Second District Court of Appeal for this matter.
Jones was convicted of three counts of sexual battery upon a child less than twelve years of age, two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation upon a child, and one count of promoting a sexual performance of a child. Following his trial, Jones filed a "Notice of Lost Judicial Jurisdiction and Demand for Discharge," alleging that when the State tried his case, the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the time for speedy trial had expired. Judge Combee denied Jones's demand, and the Second District affirmed. Jones v. State, 137 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Jones subsequently brought a civil tort action for false imprisonment against the State, Judge Combee, District Judge Anthony Black, District Judge Robert Morris, and District Judge Daniel Sleet. He alleged, in part, that the defendants knew "that jurisdiction over [him] expired in the court of the proceedings and prior to trial" and thus, they falsely imprisoned him. The record reflects that Judge Combee was the only defendant upon whom Jones effected service of process. She moved to dismiss and following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding that Judge Combee was acting in her official capacity and within the original jurisdiction of the circuit court when she presided over Jones's case. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Jones maintains that Judge Combee's denial of his demand for discharge and the Second District's affirmation thereof resulted in his continued false imprisonment. We disagree and find that Jones's suit against Judge Combee is frivolous.
As it would be vis-a-vis the other Judges who were not personally served.
The concept of judicial immunity has been engrained into our judicial system for well over a century. See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 348–49, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871). This Court has held that judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of the court are subject to the doctrine of judicial immunity. Kalmanson v. Lockett, 848 So.2d 374, 378–79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Conversely, "a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions (i.e., actions not taken in a judicial capacity), and a judge is not immune for actions, even though judicial in nature, that are taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction." Id. at 378 (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) ).
Here, Jones failed to allege, nor does the record establish, that Judge Combee acted in a "clear absence of all jurisdiction." See Rivello v. Cooper City, 322 So.2d 602, 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (holding that where appellant alleged judge exceeded his jurisdiction by enforcing a probation condition after appellant's probationary period expired, "such act was not in ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter’... [because] having initially acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, that judicial officer is not liable for having possibly acted in excess of his jurisdiction" (citing Bradley, 80 U.S. at 351 ) ).
We write only to give notice to the Department of Corrections of the frivolous nature of Jones's lawsuit and appeal. Because Jones is serving a sentence of life imprisonment, we recognize that a suggestion to impose sanctions pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2018), is academic. However, if those serving life sentences are considered for early release in the future, we hope that the intent of this Court will be realized. The filing of lawsuits against judges who act within the scope of their authority, even by one who is convinced of the righteousness of his or her position, cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing Jones's action.
AFFIRMED.
BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.