Wendell Locke v. Charles Canady, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13971
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
WENDELL TERRY LOCKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES CANADY,
Justice,
RICKY POLSTON,
Justice,
JORGE LABARGA,
Justice,
ALAN LAWSON,
Justice,
CHIEF JUSTICE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-13971 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2024 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13971
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00116-AW-MAF
____________________
Before G RANT, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Wendell Locke appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
§ 1983 suit against the Justices and Clerk of the Florida Supreme
Court. Because he abandoned any claim against the Clerk, and
because his claims against the Justices are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment, we affirm.
I.
On March 1, 2022, following a lengthy investigation, the
Florida Supreme Court suspended appellant Wendell Locke from
the practice of law for one year and ordered a taxation of costs.
Locke’s suspension was to be effective on March 31, 2022, whether
or not he filed a motion for rehearing. And that’s precisely what
he did, petitioning for rehearing on March 16. On the same day,
Locke filed this § 1983 suit against the Justices and Clerk of the
Florida Supreme Court.
USCA11 Case: 22-13971 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2024 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

22-13971 Opinion of the Court 3
In this suit, Locke challenges the suspension order on several
grounds. He claims that he was denied due process and equal
protection of the law during the state proceedings and that the
defendants initiated the investigation in retaliation for
constitutionally protected speech. As a result of those asserted
violations, he prays for this Court to enter an order “declaring the
March 1, 2022, Order null and void” and “enjoining the [Justices
and Clerk] from enforcing the sanctions of suspension and taxing
of costs.” More generally, because the suspension order was not
final at the time of suit, Locke asks this Court to prevent the Justices
and Clerk from “admonishing, reprimanding, suspending,
disbarring or otherwise disciplining” him.
Locke admits that he raised similar constitutional challenges
to the Florida Supreme Court. In fact, the Florida court rejected
the very same due process and equal protection challenges that he
reasserts in federal court. Locke’s only novel claim is his First
Amendment retaliation argument. The district court dismissed his
claims against the Clerk for lack of standing, and dismissed his
remaining claims against the Justices because of judicial immunity
and the Eleventh Amendment. This is his appeal.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2022). Likewise, this Court
reviews the grant of immunity de novo. Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d
1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001).
USCA11 Case: 22-13971 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2024 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13971
An appellant forfeits any argument not briefed on appeal,
made in passing, or raised briefly without supporting arguments or
authority. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–
82 (11th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); see also United States v.
Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
III.
At the outset, we note that Locke does not challenge the
district court’s conclusion that he lacked standing to pursue his
claims against the Clerk. He has thus forfeited any challenge to
that decision, and we do not disturb the district court’s conclusion.
See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82.
Locke’s remaining claims against the Justices are precluded
by the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits against the State of
Florida and its agencies—here, the Justices.1 Summit Med. Assocs.,
1 The Justices assert that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine also strips this Court of
jurisdiction to hear Locke’s claims. Rooker–Feldman is a “narrow and limited
doctrine” that precludes federal district courts from reviewing or rejecting
state-court judgments rendered before the district court litigation began. Behr
v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1212–13 (11th Cir. 2021). For it to apply, the relevant
state-court proceedings must have ended at the time of the federal suit.
Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1274–75 (11th Cir. 2009). Here, Locke moved
the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration on the same day he filed this
§ 1983 suit, preventing the state proceedings from ending. Rooker–Feldman
does not apply. To be sure, because the state court subsequently rejected
some of Locke’s constitutional claims, preclusion law may still bar his claims.
Behr, 8 F.4th at 1210. But that is “separate and distinct from Rooker–Feldman’s
jurisdictional prohibition.” Id. And it can only be addressed after resolving
other threshold jurisdictional issues, including immunity. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(c)(1).
USCA11 Case: 22-13971 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2024 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

22-13971 Opinion of the Court 5
P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F.3d 1326, 1336–37 (11th Cir. 1999). A narrow
exception exists, however, under Ex Parte Young, for “suits against
state officers seeking prospective equitable relief to end continuing
violations of federal law.” Id. at 1336; see Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S.
123 (1908). But the Ex parte Young doctrine applies “only to ongoing
and continuous violations of federal law”—a plaintiff “may not use
the doctrine to adjudicate the legality of past conduct.” Summit
Med. Assocs., 180 F.3d at 1337 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
277–78 (1986)). So when determining whether a suit falls within
this exception, we need only conduct a “straightforward inquiry
into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of
federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.”
Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635,
645 (2002) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
That standard is not satisfied here, so Ex parte Young does not
help Locke avoid the Eleventh Amendment bar. On May 16, 2022,
the Florida Supreme Court denied Locke’s petition for rehearing.
Florida Bar v. Locke, No. SC19-1913, 2022 WL 1533436 (Fla. May 16,
2022). Locke’s one-year suspension from practicing law—which
began on March 31, 2022—has thus ended. The end of the
suspension proceedings, and the end of the suspension itself, also
ended any ongoing constitutional violation. The asserted
violations occurred entirely in the issuance of the suspension order
or the events leading up to it. Locke argues that he was denied due
process and equal protection of the laws during the disciplinary
proceedings (for various reasons), and the initiation of the
proceedings was an unconstitutional retaliation against protected
USCA11 Case: 22-13971 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2024 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-13971
speech. None of these claims allege an ongoing or continuing
violation of federal law; all asserted violations ended when the state
proceedings ended. See Summit Med. Assocs., 180 F.3d at 1336–37.
Ex parte Young applies only in “cases in which the relief
against the state official directly ends the violation of federal law.”
Florida Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Health &
Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1219 (11th Cir. 2000). None of Locke’s
requested relief would remedy whatever constitutional violations
(if any) occurred during or as a result of the suspension
proceedings. The Eleventh Amendment thus strips this Court of
subject matter jurisdiction over Locke’s claims against the Justices.
See S&M Brands, Inc. v. Georgia, 925 F.3d 1198, 1204 (11th Cir. 2019).
* * *
Locke has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s
conclusion that he lacks standing to sue the Clerk. And his claims
against the Justices are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
USCA11 Case: 22-13971 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2024 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --