Lavarn Watson v. Willie E. Lockette

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 12, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-16288
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00050-CV-WLS-1
LAVARN WATSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIE E. LOCKETTE,
EVONNE S. MULL,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 12, 2010)
Before BLACK, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 10 --

Lavarn Watson filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting
that Judge Willie E. Lockette and Clerk Evonne S. Mull of the Superior Court of
Dougherty County, Georgia violated his constitutional rights. The district court
sua sponte dismissed Watson’s § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watson filed this pro se appeal. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. State Court Personal Injury Action
According to Watson’s § 1983 complaint, Watson filed a personal injury
action in the Dougherty County Superior Court after he was injured in a car
accident. Watson also filed an affidavit of indigence and was relieved of state
court costs.
On March 28, 2008, Superior Court Judge Lockette ordered Watson’s
personal injury case transferred to the city of Sylvester, Georgia. The transfer
order imposed upon Watson a $50 transfer fee. The superior court clerk sent
Watson a copy of the order and a letter explaining that the case would be
transferred after Watson paid the transfer fee.
On April 18, 2008, Watson took his notice of appeal and other appeal papers
to the superior court clerk’s office for filing. The clerk’s office receptionist and
another office worker looked over Watson’s appeal papers, and the receptionist
2

-- 2 of 10 --

told Watson she could not accept them because they were not proper. She also told
Watson he could not file an appeal in forma pauperis and had to pay the filing fee.
The receptionist advised Watson to go to a law library to learn how to file an
appeal.
Watson left with his papers and, several days later, mailed his notice of
appeal, affidavit of poverty and certificate of service to the superior court. On
April 27, 2008, Watson’s deadline for appealing the transfer order expired. Two
days later, on April 29, 2008, the clerk’s office returned Watson’s appeal papers by
mail with a letter explaining that Watson needed a certificate of service before his
appeal could be filed. The clerk’s office also included a guide for filing an appeal.
B. Federal Court § 1983 Action
Watson filed his § 1983 complaint in federal court on March 23, 2009.
Watson’s complaint alleged that Judge Lockette and Clerk Mull “and their agents”
violated Watson’s constitutional rights. Specifically, Watson’s complaint alleged
that the clerk’s office violated his First Amendment right when “they refused the
plaintiff’s court papers” on April 18, 2008 and his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights when “they withheld the citizen’s guide to filing appeals” until
the appeal period had expired. As to Judge Lockette, Watson’s complaint alleged
that “the court violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when it ordered the
3

-- 3 of 10 --

plaintiff to pay fifty dollars for transfer fees under Forma Pauperis.” The
complaint prayed for declaratory and equitable relief and “such other and further
relief that the court deems to be appropriate and just.”
The district court granted Watson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
After conducting a preliminary screening, the district court dismissed Watson’s
complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because Watson’s pro se complaint did not specify the
declaratory or equitable relief he sought, the district court presumed Watson
wanted the court to declare that the actions of Judge Lockette and Clerk Mull were
improper and allow Watson to either transfer his state court case at no cost or
continue his appeal in the Dougherty County Superior Court. The district court
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Watson’s complaint under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. Watson appealed.1
II. DISCUSSION
A. Sua Sponte Dismissals
The district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint at any time if
it determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed
See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923); District of Columbia1
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983).
4

-- 4 of 10 --

by the same standard as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Dismissal for
failure to state a claim is appropriate when the facts as pled do not state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal); Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1321
(11th Cir. 2008) (Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal). In addition, a district court
may sua sponte consider subject matter jurisdiction at any stage in the litigation
and must dismiss the complaint if it concludes that subject matter jurisdiction is
lacking. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506,
514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 1240, 1244 (2006).
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). After liberally construing Watson’s
complaint, we find no reversible error in the district court’s sua sponte dismissal
without prejudice.2
B. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and take the well-pleaded factual allegations in the
complaint as true. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1489-90 (11th Cir. 1997). Likewise, we
review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009).
5

-- 5 of 10 --

The district court dismissed Watson’s § 1983 complaint as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal
courts “do not have jurisdiction to act as appellate courts and [are] preclude[d] . . .
from reviewing final state court decisions.” Green v. Jefferson County Comm’n,
563 F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 199 (2009). The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine is confined to cases that are “[1] brought by state-court
losers [2] complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments [3] rendered
before the district court proceedings commenced and [4] inviting district court
review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521-22 (2005); see also
Nicholson, 558 F.3d at 1272-74, 1278-79 (explaining that, after Exxon Mobile, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited and applied narrowly).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies only when the state court proceedings
ended before the federal action was filed. Nicholson, 558 F.3d at 1275, 1277 n.11.
Further, this Court has concluded that “state proceedings have not ended for
purposes of Rooker-Feldman when an appeal from the state court judgment
remains pending at the time the plaintiff commences the federal court action . . . .”
Id. at 1279; see also Green, 563 F.3d at 1250 (concluding that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine did not apply because an appeal of the state court summary judgment
6

-- 6 of 10 --

order was pending when the federal action was filed).
1. Watson’s Complaint
Here, it is unclear from the face of Watson’s complaint whether Watson is a
state-court loser whose state court proceedings had ended before he filed his
federal action on March 23, 2009. However, admissions in Watson’s appeal brief
show the state court proceedings had ended on March 23, 2009 before Watson filed
his federal § 1983 case on that date. See Young & Vann Supply Co. v. Gulf, F. &
A. Ry. Co., 5 F.2d 421, 423 (5th Cir. 1925) (“We may consider the statements in
the brief as admissions of facts.”); see also Cooper v. Meridian Yachts, Ltd., 575
F.3d 1151, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 2009) (discussing general rule that a party is bound
by admissions in his pleadings). Thus, Watson is a state-court loser and his state3
court proceedings ended before his federal proceedings commenced.
Nonetheless, for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply, Watson’s federal
claims against Judge Lockette and Clerk Mull must also “complain[ ] of injuries
caused by state-court judgments” and “invit[e] district court review and rejection
of those judgments.” See Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S. Ct. at 1521-22.
As to Judge Lockette, we readily conclude that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars
Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down on or before September 30, 1981 are3
binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
7

-- 7 of 10 --

Watson’s claims. Watson alleges that Judge Lockette’s transfer order erred in
imposing the $50 transfer fee because Watson had been afforded pauper status.
Therefore, Watson’s § 1983 claims against Judge Lockette allege an injury caused
by Judge Lockette’s transfer order and invite the district court to review and reject
that state court ruling. As such, the district court correctly concluded that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded it from doing so.
Watson’s access-to-the-court claim against Clerk Mull, however, does not
complain of an injury “caused by” the state court judgment itself. Rather, Watson4
complains that, as a result of the actions of the clerk’s office employees, he lost the
opportunity to appeal the transfer order. Watson complains of an injury caused by
the independent actions of clerk’s office employees in refusing to accept Watson’s
appeal papers and then in withholding the citizen’s guide to filing appeals until the
appeal period had expired. Thus, Watson’s access-to-the-court claim against Clerk
Mull is not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.5
Watson’s complaint cited the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in support of the4
claim against Clerk Mull. The right of access to the courts is grounded in, inter alia, the First
Amendment’s Petition Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12, 122 S. Ct. 2179, 2186
n. 12 (2002). The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive bail or fines and the infliction
of cruel and unusual punishment, does not appear to be applicable to the facts Watson alleged.
See U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Perhaps in recognition of this fact, on appeal, Watson cites only
the First and Fourteenth Amendments in support of his court access claim.
The fact that the Georgia Court of Appeals, in dismissing Watson’s appeal, may have5
addressed the propriety of the clerk’s office employees’s actions does not implicate the Rooker
Feldman doctrine, but it may implicate some preclusion doctrine. See Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at
8

-- 8 of 10 --

B. Failure to State a Claim Against Clerk Mull
We nonetheless conclude that the district court properly dismissed Watson’s
claim against Clerk Mull. See Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361,
1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that this Court may affirm the district court on
any ground supported in the record even if that ground was not relied upon or
considered by the district court). Although Watson’s complaint names Clerk Mull
as a defendant, it alleges conduct taken by the receptionist and another office
worker in the clerk’s office, not by Clerk Mull. “It is well established in this
circuit that supervisory officials are not liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional
acts of their subordinates on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.”
Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks
omitted).
Absent personal participation, a § 1983 plaintiff must allege “a causal
connection between actions of the supervising official and the alleged
constitutional deprivation,” such as a history of widespread abuse that put the
supervisor on notice of constitutional violations or a custom or policy of the
293, 125 S. Ct. at 1529 (“If a federal plaintiff presents some independent claim, albeit one that
denies a legal conclusion that a state court has reached in a case to which he was a party . . ., then
there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of
preclusion.” (quotation marks and brackets omitted)). However, such a determination cannot be
made on the present record, which is silent as to the basis for the Georgia Court of Appeals’s
dismissal.
9

-- 9 of 10 --

supervisor that results in the constitutional violation. Id. Watson’s complaint did
not allege that Clerk Mull either personally participated in the alleged denial of
Watson’s access to the courts or was aware of a widespread pattern of engaging in
such conduct. The complaint also did not allege that the clerk’s office employees
were acting pursuant to Clerk Mull’s policy or custom. Accordingly, the district
court properly dismissed without prejudice Watson’s access-to-the-court claim
against Clerk Mull for failure to state a claim, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).6
AFFIRMED.
We reject Watson’s argument that the district court was required to hold a hearing6
before dismissing his complaint without prejudice. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123
F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a court need not look beyond the allegations in
the complaint in ruling on a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim); In
re CP Ships Ltd. Sec. Litig., 578 F.3d 1306, 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that while a
district court may need to hold a hearing before ruling on a “factual attack” on subject matter
jurisdiction, a district court takes the allegations in the complaint as true when ruling on a “facial
attack”).
10

-- 10 of 10 --