Lowell Merritt v. Suzanne Wooten, No. 12-40752 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-40752 Document: 00512176581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-40752 Summary Calendar March 15, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LOWELL MERRITT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SUZANNE H. WOOTEN, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-75 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lowell Merritt appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). Merritt argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. He posits that former Judge Wooten had no judicial immunity from § 1983 liability because the court over which she presided lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the state court proceedings and that she violated his constitutional rights. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-40752 Document: 00512176581 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2013 No. 12-40752 Merritt fails to brief the district court s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and he has therefore abandoned on appeal any challenge to that ground for dismissal. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, we perceive no error in the district court s conclusion that this case is frivolous because Judge Wooten had subject matter jurisdiction in the state court proceedings and was entitled to absolute immunity for her actions taken in her judicial capacity. See, e.g., Adams v. McIlhany, 764 F.2d 294, 297 (5th Cir. 1985). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.