Emmett L. Williams v. Judge Clay D. Land, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11423
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:19-cv-00077-LAG
EMMETT L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JUDGE CLAY D. LAND,
Judge for the U.S. District Court,
JUDGE GERALD BARD TJOFLAT,
Circuit Judge,
JUDGE CHARLES R. WILSON,
Circuit Judge,
JUDGE KEVIN C. NEWSOM,
Circuit Judge,
JUDGE PETER T. FAY,
Circuit Judge,
JUDGE JULIE E. CARNES,
Circuit Judge,
BROOKS TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. OF MEMPHIS,
CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
RICHARD A. MARCHETTI, Estate of,
JUDGE WILLIAM C. RUMER,
Superior Court, Muscogee County, Georgia,
BROWN & ADAMS, LLC,
USCA11 Case: 20-11423 Date Filed: 06/07/2021 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
CLAYTON M. ADAMS,
AUSTIN & SPARKS, PC,
JOHN T. SPARKS, SR.,
NALL & MILLER, LLP,
MARK D. LEFKOW,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(June 7, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JORDAN and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Emmett Williams appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint that his civil
rights were violated by state and federal judges, by the President of the United
States and the United States of America, and by a trucking company, its insurer,
and attorneys involved in Williams’s unsuccessful personal injury action. See 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The district court ruled that Williams’s claims about his earlier state
lawsuit were barred by res judicata and dismissed his claims against the President
and the United States for failure to state a claim. Williams argues, for the first time
on appeal, that the district judge should have recused herself. He also challenges
the dismissal of his claims against the state and federal judges as barred by judicial
immunity. We affirm.
USCA11 Case: 20-11423 Date Filed: 06/07/2021 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The district judge was not required sua sponte to recuse herself from
Williams’s case. A judge must recuse if she “has a personal bias or prejudice either
against [the moving party] or in favor of any adverse party,” 28 U.S.C. § 144, or if
“an objective, fully informed lay observer would entertain significant doubt about
the judge’s impartiality,” Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 455). “Challenges to adverse rulings are generally grounds for
appeal, not recusal,” In re Evergreen Sec., Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 1274 (11th Cir.
2009). Williams identified no personal bias or prejudice by the district judge that
required her recusal. See United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir.
1999) (“Recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous
speculation.’”).
The district court also did not err by dismissing Williams’s claims against
the state and federal judges. State and federal judges enjoy absolute immunity for
acts performed in their judicial capacity. See Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293,
1301–02, 1304–07 (11th Cir. 2017). “[A ] judge’s act is “judicial” for purposes of
immunity [when] . . . the act is one normally performed by judges[] and . . . the
complaining party was dealing with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Id. at 1304.
Williams alleges that the judges committed fraud and collusion when they ruled
against him, but the acts about which Williams complains were undertaken by the
judges in their judicial capacities. So the judges are entitled to judicial immunity,
USCA11 Case: 20-11423 Date Filed: 06/07/2021 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
even if their “conduct was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of
[their] authority.” See id. at 1301.
Williams makes no argument about the dismissal of his claims based on res
judicata or for failure to state a claim. As a result, he has abandoned any other
challenges he could have made to the dismissal of those claims. See Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Williams’s complaint.
USCA11 Case: 20-11423 Date Filed: 06/07/2021 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --