Pepe v. McHugh

M.D. Florida

Pepe v. McHugh

DecidedAugust 11, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00617

StatusUnknown

This text of Pepe v. McHugh (Pepe v. McHugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pepe v. McHugh, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

THOMAS PEPE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-617-JES-KCD

v.

JUDGE ALANE C. LABODA, JUDGE JAMES SHENKO, JUDGE JOSEPH FULLER, SENIOR JUDGE CHRISTINE H. GREIDER, SENIOR JUDGE CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK, SENIOR JUDGE SHERRA WINESETT,

Defendants, /

ORDER Plaintiff Thomas Pepe moves the Court to revoke judicial immunity from “Defendant Judge McHugh.” (Doc. 42.) The motion is DENIED because Judge McHugh is not currently a defendant. What is more, even if he were a party, the Court cannot perfunctorily revoke his judicial immunity. “[J]udicial immunity is an affirmative defense” that must be addressed on the merits. Mordkofsky v. Calabresi, 159 F. App'x 938, 939 (11th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff separately moves the Court to reinstate several defendants who were omitted from his latest complaint. (Doc. 45.) This motion is also DENIED. The Court cannot add back parties who have no claims lodged against them in the current, operative complaint. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to again include these defendants, he must file an amended complaint. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 11, 2025.

ok. Sule C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

THOMAS PEPE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-617-JES-KCD

v.

JUDGE ALANE C. LABODA, JUDGE JAMES SHENKO, JUDGE JOSEPH FULLER, SENIOR JUDGE CHRISTINE H. GREIDER, SENIOR JUDGE CYNTHIA A. PIVACEK, SENIOR JUDGE SHERRA WINESETT,

Defendants, /

ORDER Plaintiff Thomas Pepe moves the Court to revoke judicial immunity from “Defendant Judge McHugh.” (Doc. 42.) The motion is DENIED because Judge McHugh is not currently a defendant. What is more, even if he were a party, the Court cannot perfunctorily revoke his judicial immunity. “[J]udicial immunity is an affirmative defense” that must be addressed on the merits. Mordkofsky v. Calabresi, 159 F. App'x 938, 939 (11th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff separately moves the Court to reinstate several defendants who were omitted from his latest complaint. (Doc. 45.) This motion is also DENIED. The Court cannot add back parties who have no claims lodged against them in the current, operative complaint. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to again include these defendants, he must file an amended complaint. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 11, 2025.

ok. Sule C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pepe v. McHugh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pepe-v-mchugh-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack