Randall Lamont Rolle v. J.L. Edmondson, et al

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 20, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12576
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-01093-MMH-JBT
RANDALL LAMONT ROLLE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. L. EDMONDSON,
STEPHAN P. MICKLE,
WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.,
PHILIP WAYNE EDWARDS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 20, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Randall Lamont Rolle appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Rolle
argues the defendant judges and defendant prosecutor are not absolutely immune
from suits for injunctive relief. After review, we affirm.1
Federal judges enjoy absolute immunity from suits seeking injunctive relief.
See Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000). Prosecutors, however,
are not protected by absolute immunity from claims for injunctive relief. To
obtain injunctive relief against a prosecutor, a plaintiff must establish (1) the
violation of a right, (2) the existence of a serious risk of continuing irreparable
injury from said violation if relief is not granted, and (3) no adequate remedy at
law. Id.
Here, the district court did not err in finding absolute immunity protects the
federal judges from Rolle’s suit for injunctive relief. Although the district court
erred in finding the prosecutor absolutely immune, the error is harmless because
an adequate remedy at law is available to Rolle for the relief sought: appeal of his
underlying petition. Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing Rolle’s suit
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim1
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006). Pro se
pleadings are liberally construed and all allegations in the complaint are taken as true. Id.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --