Derrel Thomas v. Kurt Hitzemann

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13693 Derrel Leonard Thomas, proceeding pro se, sued Florida state court judge Kurt Hitzemann and state prosecutors Joshua Healion and Kyle Doty for allegedly violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights during a state prosecution against him for driv- ing under the influence. The district judge denied Thomas's mo- tion seeking her disqualification and dismissed Thomas's com- plaint. After careful review, we affirm in part and vacate in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2024, a police officer observed Thomas driving a vehicle resembling a golf cart in the center of the road. After a search of the vehicle's vanity plate revealed that it was not registered, the officer stopped Thomas and called for backup. Dur- ing the stop, the officers observed several open containers inside the vehicle and Thomas exhibited signs of intoxication. Thomas was ultimately arrested and charged with driving under the influ- ence and failure to register a motor vehicle, among other things, which he proceeded to litigate pro se.

Healion and Doty prosecuted Thomas's state criminal case before Judge Hitzemann in Hernando County, Florida. Early on in the state prosecution, Thomas filed a motion to dismiss and a mo- tion to suppress evidence. Judge Hitzemann denied both motions. Following the denial of his motions, Thomas filed a pro se complaint against Judge Hitzemann and Healion in federal district court. He later amended his complaint to add Doty as a defendant, though he never completed service on Doty. At all times relevant to this appeal, the state criminal prosecution was ongoing.

2

25-13693 Opinion of the Court 3 Thomas's amended complaint alleged that Judge Hitzemann, Healion, and Doty conspired to obstruct justice by amending a sworn probable cause affidavit (the arrest report) to say that Thomas was driving a low-speed vehicle rather than a golf cart. Thomas contended that this amendment resulted in Healion and Doty "pursu[ing] charges without probable cause" and Judge Hitzemann denying his motion to dismiss. Thomas also asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that Judge Hitzemann, Healion, and Doty racially discriminated against him in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. He requested that the district court transfer the state prosecution to a different court and award him punitive and compensatory damages.

Soon after initiating his federal lawsuit, Thomas filed a mo- tion to disqualify the district judge presiding over it. He argued that the district judge should voluntarily recuse herself because she "has a[] pending appeal" regarding a case where she dismissed Thomas's complaint and "never ruled on a Motion for Change of Venue" that Thomas had filed. Thomas also generally asserted that the district judge had defied Florida law by conflating misdemeanor and felony battery. The district court denied Thomas's motion to disqualify because Thomas failed to identify any extra-judicial conduct that would require recusal, and he did not provide an affidavit in sup- port of his motion.

Then, Judge Hitzemann and Healion moved to dismiss Thomas's complaint. The district court granted those motions and dismissed Thomas's complaint with prejudice. The district court

3

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13693 held that Thomas failed to state a claim for monetary relief because judicial and prosecutorial immunity barred his claims against Judge Hitzemann, Healion, and Doty. The district court also held that, pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Thomas's request to transfer the venue of his state prosecution. Thomas timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Two standards of review guide this appeal. We review a dis- trict judge's recusal decision for abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., 293 F.3d 1306, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2002). We review a district court's Younger abstention decision under the same standard. Leonard v. Ala. State Bd. of Pharm., 61 F.4th 902, 907 (11th Cir. 2023).

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for fail- ure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Venequip Mach. Sales Corp., 147 F.4th 1341, 1346 (11th Cir. 2025). The standard for reviewing a district court's sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) "is less clear," but we have previously reviewed for an abuse of discretion sua sponte dismissals where the plaintiff had not completed service and the defendant made no filings. Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez,

480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 2007); Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th Cir. 2011).

Although a pro se litigant's pleadings must be construed more liberally than those drafted by attorneys, "this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to

4

25-13693 Opinion of the Court 5 rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an ac- tion." Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)). We may also affirm on any ground supported by the record. Cisneros v. Petland, Inc., 972 F.3d 1204, 1210 (11th Cir. 2020).

III. DISCUSSION

A. The District Court Properly Denied Thomas's Disqual- ification Motion.

We first address whether the district court abused its discre- tion when it denied Thomas's motion to disqualify. It did not. Disqualification of federal district judges is governed by two federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Under § 144, recusal is required when a party "makes and files a timely and sufficient affi- davit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a per- sonal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 144. "To warrant recusal under § 144, the mov- ing party must allege facts that would convince a reasonable person that bias actually exists." Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).

Under § 455, a federal judge "shall disqualify h[er]self in any proceeding in which h[er] impartiality might reasonably be ques- tioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge's impartiality might be ques- tioned if she has "personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." Id. § 455(b)(1). Disqualification is warranted only if an

5

6 Opinion of the Court 25-13693

"objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts . . . would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's im- partiality." Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (quot- ing McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir.

1990)).

The party seeking disqualification must allege that the bias is "personal as distinguished from judicial in nature." Id. (quoting United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1002 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)). As such, "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion" under § 455. Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). And "except where pervasive bias is shown, a judge's rulings in the same or a related case are not a suf- ficient basis for recusal." Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239. The district judge did not abuse her discretion by denying Thomas's disqualification motion. Thomas did not provide an affi- davit in support of his motion, as required by § 144. Nor did he offer factual evidence of personal bias that would sustain a doubt about the district judge's impartiality and require recusal. See id. Instead, Thomas argued that the district judge should recuse herself be- cause she allegedly dismissed Thomas's complaint and neglected to rule on a motion in a separate case. But adverse rulings are grounds for appeal, not recusal. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. And Thomas's conclusory allegation that the district judge conflated fel- ony and misdemeanor battery under Florida law comes nowhere close to the level of objective partiality necessary to mandate

6

25-13693 Opinion of the Court 7 recusal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Thomas's disqualification motion.

B. The District Court Properly Dismissed Thomas's Re- quest for Injunctive Relief.

Turning to the merits of the district court's dismissal, we first address whether the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Thomas's request to transfer his state criminal prose- cution to a different court under Younger's abstention principle. It did not.

In Younger, the Supreme Court held that a federal court should not act to restrain an ongoing state criminal prosecution.

401 U.S. at 41. This principle "derives from the vital consideration of comity between the state and national governments[.]" 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation mod- ified).

A court must abstain under Younger if: (1) the federal pro- ceeding will interfere with an ongoing state court proceeding;

(2) the state proceeding implicates important state interests; and

(3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding to raise the federal claim. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1276. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the state proceed- ing does not provide an adequate remedy for his federal claims. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1279. And a federal court "should as- sume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the

7

8 Opinion of the Court 25-13693 absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary." Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987).

All three Younger prongs are met here. First, transferring Thomas's state criminal prosecution to a different court would dis- rupt the normal course of his ongoing state prosecution. See 31 Fos- ter Children, 329 F.3d at 1276. Second, a state criminal proceeding implicates important state interests, specifically the state's police power. See Johnson v. Florida, 32 F.4th 1092, 1099 (11th Cir. 2022). Third, Thomas has not met his burden of showing that he cannot request a change of venue in his state prosecution. Although Thomas argued below and argues on appeal that the Florida court overseeing his criminal prosecution is systemically corrupt, his con- clusory allegations do not overcome Younger's recognition of com- ity and federalism, nor do they fit within this Court's recognized exceptions to Younger abstention. See Leonard, 61 F.4th at 907, 911-14.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Thomas's request for injunctive relief under Younger. However, be- cause dismissal under Younger does not reach the request's merits, we vacate and remand to the district court with instructions to dis- miss Thomas's request for injunctive relief without prejudice. C. Thomas's Complaint Fails To State a Claim to Mone- tary Relief.

Thomas's claims for damages are barred by the doctrines of judicial and prosecutorial immunity.

8

25-13693 Opinion of the Court 9

1. Thomas's Claims Against Judge Hitzemann Are Barred by Judicial Immunity.

District courts may dismiss claims barred by judicial immun- ity with prejudice. See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1242 (affirming a district court's dismissal of claims barred by judicial immunity); Silberman

v. Miami Date Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1133 (11th Cir. 2019) (explain- ing that district courts can dismiss a pro se complaint with prejudice if amendment would result in a non-viable claim).

"A judge enjoys absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within the jurisdiction of his court." McCullough v. Fin- ley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2018). An action is judicial if its

"nature and function" are judicial. Id. at 1330-31. A judge's motiva- tion is irrelevant to this inquiry. Id. at 1331. Absolute immunity ap- plies even when the judge's actions were erroneous, malicious, or exceeded the court's jurisdiction. Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). This absolute immunity extends to state judges. Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1301-02 (11th Cir. 2017) ("Absolute immunity is not reserved for Article III judges only."); see Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). The district court correctly concluded that Judge Hitzemann was entitled to judicial immunity. Thomas claims that Judge Hitzemann violated his constitutional rights by denying a motion to dismiss and improperly amending the probable cause affidavit. These actions are textbook judicial acts and were within Judge Hitzemann's jurisdiction under Florida law. See Sibley, 437 F.3d at

9

10 Opinion of the Court 25-13693 1070; McCullough, 907 F.3d at 1330−31; Fla. Stat. § 34.01(1)(a) (giv- ing county courts original jurisdiction over all misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the circuit courts); id. § 316.193(1)(a), (13)(c) (rec- ognizing driving under the influence as a misdemeanor). Because Thomas's claims concern judicial acts Judge Hitzemann took while presiding over Thomas's criminal prosecution, the district court properly dismissed those claims with prejudice.

2. Thomas's Claims Against Healion and Doty Are Barred by Prosecutorial Immunity. A district court may also dismiss claims barred by prosecu- torial immunity with prejudice. Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999). Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for activities "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process[.]" Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976) ("[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983."). Thomas alleges that Healion and Doty improperly amended a probable cause affidavit and thus pursued charges without prob- able cause. While the absence of probable cause, if true, may be grounds for the dismissal of charges, it is not grounds for holding prosecutors personally liable for money damages. Because Heal- ion's and Doty's alleged wrongdoing concerns actions "intimately associated" with Thomas's criminal prosecution, they are entitled to absolute immunity from damages. See id. at 430. Thomas argues that the district court erred by dismissing his claims against Doty sua sponte before Thomas completed service

10

25-13693 Opinion of the Court 11 of process. This argument lacks merit. Generally, sua sponte dis- missal is inappropriate if: (1) "the defendant has not filed an answer and the plaintiff still had a right to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)"; (2) the plaintiff "brought his claim in good faith"; and (3) the district court did not notify the plaintiff of its intent to dismiss or give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d at 1057 (citing Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de P.R., Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 527 (11th Cir. 1983)). But dis- missal is permitted "without notice if the complaint is patently friv- olous or if reversal would be futile." Tazoe, 631 F.3d at 1336 (cita- tion modified); see Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1127 n.99 (11th Cir. 2001) ("Reversal of a sua sponte dismissal without notice may not be mandated if amendment of the complaint would be futile or if it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail." (citation modified)).

The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing Thomas's claims against Doty. It is patently ob- vious that Thomas's claims against Doty would fail and any amendment to his suit would be futile. See Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1127 n.99; cf. Silberman, 927 F.3d at 1133 (finding futility where "a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a claim" (citation omit- ted)). Had Doty been served and moved to dismiss, the outcome would be the same. Because Thomas's claims against Healion and Doty are virtually identical, Doty is protected by prosecutorial im- munity too. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Thomas's amended complaint.

11

12 Opinion of the Court 25-13693

IV. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the district court's denial of Thomas's disqual- ification motion and its with-prejudice dismissal of Thomas's claims for damages. However, we VACATE the with-prejudice dismissal of Thomas's claim for injunctive relief and REMAND

with instructions to dismiss the claim without prejudice.

12