Brian C. Chubboy v. Nona C. Chubboy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 25-11107

Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BRIAN C. CHUBBOY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

NONA C. CHUBBOY,

MELISSA F. WILLIAMS,

JUDGE PAMELA CAMPBELL,

Sixth Judicial Circuit,

CHIEF JUDGE SHAWN CRANE,

Sixth Judicial Circuit,

CHIEF JUDGE DANIEL H. SLEET,

Second District Court of Appeal, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

1

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11107 ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:25-cv-00586-TPB-LSG ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

P ER CURIAM:

A Florida state court enjoined Brian Chubboy from exploit- ing a vulnerable adult—his mother. In response, Chubboy sued his family, their attorney, and several state court judges in federal district court to enjoin the state court injunction. The district court dismissed the federal complaint and Chubboy appeals. We affirm but remand for the district court to correct a small error in the dis- missal order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

After his elderly mother had a stroke in January 2022, Chub- boy moved to Florida to live with and care for her. His mother gave him a durable power of attorney so he could manage her af- fairs.

A few months later, Chubboy's mother accused him of using his position of trust to steal from her while neglecting her medical needs. She filed suit in a Florida circuit court seeking an injunction

"for protection against exploitation of a vulnerable adult." See Fla. Stat. § 825.1035(1). The circuit court entered a temporary injunc- tion and scheduled a hearing to consider whether to enter a perma- nent injunction. Chubboy appeared briefly at the hearing to argue

2

25-11107 Opinion of the Court 3 he didn't have sufficient notice of the temporary injunction or the hearing, but he left mid-hearing because he "d[id]n't wish to partic- ipate" in the "violation of due process."

The circuit court entered a permanent injunction awarding Chubboy's mother exclusive possession of her home, prohibiting Chubboy from contacting her, revoking his durable power of at- torney, and ordering him to repay $310,726.95. Chubboy appealed the injunction to a Florida district court of appeal, which affirmed per curiam with no opinion. A few weeks later, Chubboy's mother moved the circuit court to hold Chubboy in contempt for not com- plying with the injunction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

While the contempt proceedings were pending, Chubboy filed a pro se complaint in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. sec- tions 1983 and 1985 seeking an injunction "against the use" of the Florida injunction to "ceas[e] [his property]," "hold[] new hearings [or] new legal actions," or to "incarcerat[e]" him. He named as de- fendants his mother, her attorney, two of her other children, the circuit court judge who entered the injunction, the circuit court chief judge, the three district court of appeal judges who affirmed the injunction, and the district court of appeal chief judge. The federal district court considered the complaint sua sponte. It concluded that the judicial defendants were "entitled to absolute judicial immunity" because Chubboy's "allegations ema- nate[d] from actions" they took "in their official judicial capacities

3

4 Opinion of the Court 25-11107 during proceedings over which they had jurisdiction." It also dis- missed Chubboy's claims against the private defendants for three reasons.

First, Chubboy sought "to stay a state court injunction en- tered against him," which was not allowed under the Anti-Injunc- tion Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Second, because Chubboy's com- plaint "[took] issue with state court rulings, orders, and injunc- tions," it was "barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine." See Rooker

v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). And third, the district court abstained under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), in favor of "the state court pro- ceedings referenced in the complaint." The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Chubboy appeals the dismissal.¹

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo "[w]hether an official is entitled to abso- lute immunity." Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Mikko v. City of Atlanta, 857 F.3d 1136, 1142 (11th Cir. 2017)). And we review for abuse of discretion "a district court's determination to abstain from exercising jurisdiction." Johnson v. Florida, 32 F.4th 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 2022) (citing Wexler v. Lepore,

385 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2004)).

4

25-11107 Opinion of the Court 5

DISCUSSION

We'll first discuss the dismissal of Chubboy's claims against the judicial defendants. Then, we'll turn to the dismissal of his claims against the private defendants.

The judicial defendants

Chubboy argues that the Florida judges were not entitled to judicial immunity. We disagree.

Judicial officers have absolute immunity for any "acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation modified). That is so even when the judge errs, acts maliciously, or exceeds his jurisdiction. Id. To de- termine whether a judge was acting in his judicial capacity, we con- sider whether the judge was performing "a normal judicial func- tion," whether the acts "occurred in the judge's chambers or in open court," whether "the controversy involved a case pending be- fore the judge," and whether it "arose immediately out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity." Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1071 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Scott v. Hayes, 719 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1983)).

Here, the judicial defendants were immune because they were judges acting in their judicial capacity. The complaint named as defendants the Florida circuit court judge who entered the in- junction, the chief judge of the circuit, the three Florida appellate judges who affirmed the injunction on appeal, and the chief judge

5

6 Opinion of the Court 25-11107 of the appellate court.²He alleged that the circuit judges entered the injunction without giving him sufficient notice or time to de- fend. And he alleged that the appellate judges perpetuated a fraud by denying his motion to supplement the record and affirming the injunction per curiam with no opinion, which deprived Chubboy of the chance to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Thus, Chub- boy's claims arose out of the judges performing normal judicial functions, in court, in cases that were properly before them. See id. Nor did any of the judges act "in the clear absence of all ju- risdiction." See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239 (citation modified). Florida law authorizes circuit courts to "issue injunctions." See Fla. Stat. § 26.012(3). And Florida district courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review the final orders of circuit courts. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). On appeal, Chubboy argues that the circuit judge lacked jurisdiction over his "Minnesota [p]ower of [a]ttorney and matters involving [his] Minnesota real estate transactions, financ- ing, and payments." But, even assuming he's right, he doesn't es- tablish that the circuit judge purported to exercise such jurisdiction when entering the injunction. The only power of attorney the cir- cuit court's injunction addressed was signed on November 30, 2024, in Florida, under Florida law. And the circuit judge was clear that the injunction was "valid and enforceable in all counties of

6

25-11107 Opinion of the Court 7 Florida." Chubboy hasn't shown that the circuit judge acted "in the clear absence of all jurisdiction" by enjoining him from exploit- ing his mother. See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239 (citation modified). Nor has he shown—or even argued—that the judges who affirmed the injunction lacked jurisdiction to do so. Thus, the district court cor- rectly concluded that the judicial defendants were immune from Chubboy's suit for injunctive relief.

The private defendants

Chubboy argues that none of the three reasons the district court gave—the Anti-Injunction Act, Rooker-Feldman, or Younger abstention—was a sufficient basis to dismiss his claims against the private defendants. Because we conclude that the district court didn't abuse its discretion by abstaining under Younger, we need not decide whether dismissal was appropriate under the Rooker-Feld- man doctrine or the Anti-Injunction Act. See Kimberly Regenesis, LLC

v. Lee Cnty., 64 F.4th 1253, 1258 (11th Cir. 2023) (observing that, where an appeal raises several "jurisdictional—and other thresh- old—questions, we have the option of choosing which path to go down"); Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (explaining that a court need not decide its jurisdic- tion under Article III before abstaining under Younger). Younger abstention is appropriate when there is an "ongoing state judicial proceeding" that "implicate[s] important state inter- ests" and presents an "adequate opportunity . . . to raise constitu- tional challenges." 31 Foster Child. v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th

7

8 Opinion of the Court 25-11107 Cir. 2003) (citation modified). We agree with the district court that all three elements were met here.

First, Chubboy's complaint asked the district court to enjoin an ongoing state judicial proceeding. He explained that his mother had moved to hold him in contempt for violating the Florida circuit court's injunction. As a result, he sought to enjoin his mother, her attorney, two other family members, and six Florida judges from using the permanent injunction as a basis "for any action," includ- ing taking his property and incarcerating him. And the enforce- ment proceeding was still ongoing on March 18, 2025, when the district court abstained under Younger.

Second, the state proceeding implicated important state in- terests. Contempt proceedings are sufficiently important to justify Younger abstention. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13 (1987). That's because such proceedings "stand[] in aid of the au- thority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory." Id. (quoting Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 336 n.12 (1977)).

Finally, Chubboy had the burden to establish "that the state proceedings d[id] not provide an adequate remedy for his federal claims." See 31 Foster Child., 329 F.3d at 1279 (citing Butler v. Ala. Judicial Inquiry Comm'n, 261 F.3d 1154, 1159 (11th Cir. 2001)). He failed to do so. And we "assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary." Id. (quoting Pennzoil, 481 U.S. at 15).

8

25-11107 Opinion of the Court 9 Chubboy counters that Younger abstention was improper be- cause the district court "provide[d] no evidence of any ongoing state court proceeding . . . because there [was] none." But the dis- trict court was clear that it was abstaining in favor of the "state court proceedings referenced in the complaint." And Chubboy's complaint was aimed at enjoining the state court enforcement pro- ceedings, which were ongoing at the time. Not only did his com- plaint reference those proceedings, the relief he requested clearly implicated them too. He sought an order enjoining "the use" of the Florida court's injunction "for any action" against him. Grant- ing that relief would have interfered with an ongoing state judicial proceeding.

We thus affirm the district court's dismissal of the com- plaint. However, when a district court is without "power to render a judgment on the merits," any dismissal should be without preju- dice. See Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1235 (11th Cir. 2008). So, we remand for the court to correct the judgment to dismiss Chubboy's claims against the pri- vate defendants without prejudice.³

9

10 Opinion of the Court 25-11107

CONCLUSION

We affirm the dismissal of Chubboy's complaint. But we remand for the district court to correct the dismissal so it is without prejudice as to the private defendants.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

without prejudice"); Morrow v. Winslow, 94 F.3d 1386, 1398 (10th Cir. 1996) (remanding to district court with instructions "to abstain [under Younger] and to dismiss [the] case without prejudice").

10