Irma I. Donato Malave v. Hon. Karen Abrams, No. 13-1950 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1950 IRMA I. DONATO MALAVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HON. KAREN H. ABRAMS, St. Mary's County Judge; HON. CHRISTOPHER B. KEHOE; HON. STUART BERGER; HON. JAMES P. SALMON, Court of Special Appeals Judges; HON. ROBERT M. BELL, Court of Appeals Chief Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:13-cv-01985-DKC) Submitted: November 27, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rickey Nelson Jones, LAW OFFICES OF REVEREND RICKEY NELSON JONES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F. Gansler, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Irma orders I. Donato dismissing jurisdiction and her Malave appeals complaint denying for the lack district of reconsideration. subject For the court s matter following reasons, we affirm. It is well-established that the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction is on the plaintiff, the party who is asserting jurisdiction. Robb Evans & Assocs., Holibaugh, 609 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2010). district court s dismissal jurisdiction de novo. (4th Cir. 2013). for lack of LLC v. We review the subject matter Cooksey v. Futrell, 721 F.3d 226, 234 In addition, judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from damages liability for judicial acts unless done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). Citing Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), Malave argues on appeal that judicial immunity does not apply to claims for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. precedent established by that decision was However, the abrogated by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847, which amended § 1983 and provided that injunctive relief [against a judicial officer] shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated 2 or declaratory relief was unavailable. Id. § 309. Malave has not shown that either condition was satisfied here. 1 Moreover, we conclude that the district court correctly held that consideration of Malave s claims was barred by the Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine. See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2011) (discussing doctrine). effectively sought to have the district Because Malave court review the Maryland state courts decisions, her action was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and the jurisdiction to entertain her claims. district court lacked Accordingly, we affirm the district court s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 1 Moreover, although the Supreme Court concluded in Pulliam that attorney fees in § 1983 cases are a statutory exception to the general rule, this holding was also abrogated by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). 2 See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 3