Johnnie Thomas v. Judge Robert Sweatt, Jr.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10605
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JOHNNIE MARENE THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JUDGE ROBERT C. SWEATT, JR.,
In his individual and personal capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00139-LGW-BWC
USCA11 Case: 23-10605 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10605
____________________
Before J ORDAN, L AGOA, and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Johnnie Marene Thomas, proceeding pro se, appeals the dis-
trict court’s dismissal with prejudice of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 com-
plaint. The court’s basis for dismissal was its conclusion that the
defendant, Georgia Probate Judge Robert C. Sweatt, Jr., was enti-
tled to judicial immunity. Ms. Thomas argues that Judge Sweatt
was not entitled to judicial immunity because he acted outside of
his jurisdiction in adjudicating the estate of her late mother.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of judicial immun-
ity. See Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001). “Pro se
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
“Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from dam-
ages for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial ca-
pacity unless they acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’”
Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omit-
ted). Absolute judicial immunity “applies even when the judge’s
acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his her jurisdic-
tion.” Id. “[T]he necessary inquiry in determining whether a de-
fendant judge is immune from suit is whether at the time he took
the challenged action he had jurisdiction over the subject matter
before him.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).
USCA11 Case: 23-10605 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-10605 Opinion of the Court 3
We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing
Ms. Thomas’ complaint based on judicial immunity. Ms. Thomas’
conclusory statements that Judge Sweatt violated his judicial oath
and the Constitution lack the specificity required to show that
Judge Sweatt acted outside of his jurisdiction as a probate judge.
See Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239. Moreover, Ms. Thomas fails to allege
any specific facts showing that Judge Sweatt did not have jurisdic-
tion over the adjudication of the estate of her late mother. See
Stump, 435 U.S. at 356. Indeed, Ms. Thomas contends that Judge
Sweatt violated her rights by not awarding her an equal share of
the estate. Judge Sweatt’s act of disposing of a decedent’s estate
falls squarely within the jurisdictional authority of a state probate
judge. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ms.
Thomas’ § 1983 action.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-10605 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --