Rosen v. The State of Florida

Background

Samuel D. Rosen, an attorney, sued the State of Florida and Florida judges Charles R. Canady, Kevin Emas, and Jeffrey Levenson. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that the defendants conspired to deprive him of constitutional due-process rights. He sought damages, a declaration that the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration were unlawful, and an injunction against their future application.

The allegations arose from several lawsuits Rosen filed in Florida involving owners at the Tiffany of Bal Harbour Condominium Association. Rosen challenged actions taken in those proceedings, including rulings by Judge Levenson, an appellate ruling involving Judge Emas, and the assignment made by Chief Justice Canady. Among other things, Judge Levenson declared Rosen a vexatious litigant and entered an order restricting certain conduct by Rosen and his trust.

Rosen also attempted to bring the case on behalf of the Samuel D. Rosen, 2006 Trust. The opinion states that it was unclear whether Rosen was currently licensed to practice law in New York. The court explained that an individual may represent himself, but a person who is not an attorney may not represent another person or an artificial entity. The court treated a trust as an artificial entity that cannot appear in federal court without a lawyer.

Venue

The court held that New York was not a proper venue under the general federal venue statute. The defendants did not all reside in the Southern District of New York, and Rosen’s allegations showed that the events underlying his claims occurred in Florida. The court rejected Rosen’s argument that the trust’s New York choice-of-law provision established venue because that provision did not govern claims challenging Florida judges’ judicial acts.

Although the federal venue statute permits dismissal or, when justice requires, transfer from an improper venue, the court declined to transfer the case. It concluded that dismissal was appropriate because the defendants were immune from suit and the action was frivolous.

Claims Against Florida

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Rosen’s claims against the State of Florida in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment generally protects states from federal-court lawsuits unless the state waives that protection or Congress validly removes it. The court concluded that Florida had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it through Sections 1983 or 1985. The claims against Florida were therefore dismissed on immunity grounds.

Claims Against the Judges

The court held that Judges Levenson, Emas, and Canady were absolutely immune from claims for damages based on acts within their judicial responsibilities. Acts arising from or related to individual cases before a judge are generally judicial acts, and allegations of bad faith or malice do not overcome this immunity. The court also explained that federal law sharply limits injunctive relief against judicial officers for acts taken in their judicial capacity.

The court found that Rosen had not alleged facts showing that the judges acted outside their judicial responsibilities or without jurisdiction. Because the challenged conduct related to cases before the judges, the court dismissed the claims against them based on judicial immunity and as frivolous. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.

Amendment and Warning

The court declined to give Rosen permission to amend the complaint. Although courts generally give self-represented plaintiffs an opportunity to correct a defective complaint, the court stated that Rosen was an attorney and therefore was not entitled to the special consideration ordinarily given to self-represented litigants. It also concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

The court warned Rosen that another complaint found to be duplicative, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise lacking merit could lead to an order requiring him to explain why he should not be barred from filing new actions without prior court permission.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint based on judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and frivolousness. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Rosen permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.