Miriam Hernandez v. Pedro Echarte, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2024
• Docket: 24-11488
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-11488 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11488 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MIRIAM HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JUDGE PEDRO ECHARTE, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, HAROLD B. KITE TRUPPMAN ESQ. P.A., HAROLD B. TRUPPMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-11488 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2024 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11488

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-20766-RKA ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Miriam Hernandez appeals pro se the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of her second amended complaint alleging viola- tions of due process, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Medicare law against Judge Pedro Echarte, Jr., her attorney Harold B. Kite Truppman, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The dis- trict court dismissed Hernandez’s request for injunctive relief against Judge Echarte and her request for damages against Trupp- man and State Farm because she failed to state a claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We affirm. We review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, viewing the allegations in the complaint as true. Henley v. Payne, 945 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 2019). A district court must dismiss a complaint of a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the district court determines that an action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The district court did not err in dismissing Hernandez’s re- quest for injunctive relief against Judge Echarte. “A judge enjoys USCA11 Case: 24-11488 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2024 Page: 3 of 4

24-11488 Opinion of the Court 3

absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within the jurisdiction of his court,” McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2018), unless he acts in “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 1332 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To ob- tain injunctive relief against a judicial officer under section 1983, a plaintiff must establish that the officer violated a declaratory decree or declaratory relief must otherwise be unavailable. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And there must be an “absence of an adequate remedy at law,” such as the state appellate process. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2000). Hernandez argues that Judge Echarte was not entitled to judicial immunity because he was without jurisdic- tion when she filed a motion to disqualify him. Even assuming that motion was granted, Judge Echarte would not have been acting without subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on that motion. See McCullough, 907 F.3d at 1332. And Hernandez did not allege that a declaratory decree was violated or unavailable. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, there was an adequate remedy at law because she could have appealed Judge Echarte’s orders. See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1242-43. So, the district court did not err in dismissing Hernandez’s second amended complaint as to Judge Echarte. The district court also did not err in ruling that Hernandez failed to state a claim against Truppman and State Farm. To act “under color of state law” under section 1983, a deprivation must involve a state actor. Charles v. Johnson, 18 F.4th 686, 694 (11th Cir. 2021). “Use of the courts by private parties does not constitute an act under color of state law.” Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1133 (11th Cir. 1992). Truppman and State Farm are private actors who USCA11 Case: 24-11488 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2024 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 24-11488

did not act under color of state law by filing motions in state court. See id. And although Hernandez argues on appeal that private ac- tors can conspire with state actors like Judge Echarte to act under color of state law, she did not allege facts that would support an inference of a conspiracy in her second amended complaint. Full- man v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that vague and conclusory allegations of a § 1983 conspiracy are insuf- ficient to state a claim). To the extent Hernandez argues she plausibly alleged viola- tions of federal Medicare law, she failed to state a claim by not cit- ing a statute or providing factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (holding that a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”). We need not address Hernandez’s arguments regarding whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Federal Rule of Civil Pro- cedure 4(m) apply because the district court did not base its dismis- sal on these grounds. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Hernandez’s second amended complaint.