Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Emanuel Tuggerson v. Anthony Tatti

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-10781
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-10781 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-10781
Non-Argument Calendar

EMANUEL ANGELO TUGGERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus

CIRCUIT JUDGE ANTHONY MICHAEL TATTI,
individual and official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 5:24-cv-00593-SPC-PRL

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Emanuel Tuggerson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal with prejudice of his amended complaint asserting
USCA11 Case: 25-10781 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10781

a single claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking money damages and
an injunction dismissing his conviction and sentence. Tuggerson
asserts Judge Anthony Tatti is not entitled to judicial immunity be-
cause Judge Tatti’s decision to separate his trial from his codefend-
ant’s trial was not a judicial act, that decision was plainly erroneous,
and Judge Tatti lacked jurisdiction to separate Tuggerson’s trial.
After review, we affirm.
District courts may dismiss claims barred by judicial immun-
ity. See Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000) (affirming
a district court’s dismissal of claims barred by judicial immunity).
Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from damages for actions
they take in their judicial capacity unless they act in “clear absence
of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 1239 (quotation marks omitted). Under
the Federal Courts Improvement Act, state judges enjoy immunity
from injunctive relief in § 1983 claims unless “a declaratory decree
was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” Id. at 1242
(quoting Pub. L. No. 104-317, § 309 (c), 110 Stat. 3847 (1996)).
Judges retain judicial immunity even for erroneous decisions and
malicious actions. Id. at 1239. An action is judicial if its “nature and
function” are judicial. McCollough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1330-31
(11th Cir. 2018).
The district court did not err in dismissing Tuggerson’s
claim with prejudice because Tuggerson’s § 1983 claim was barred
by judicial immunity. See Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1301
(11th Cir. 2017) (reviewing a grant of judicial immunity de novo, ac-
USCA11 Case: 25-10781 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-10781 Opinion of the Court 3

cepting all facts in the complaint as true for purposes of determin-
ing whether a defendant is entitled to judicial immunity). The “na-
ture and function” of the actions that Tuggerson is suing Judge
Tatti for are judicial. See McCollough, 907 F.3d at 1330-31; see also
Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1242. Furthermore, allowing Tuggerson to
amend his complaint would be futile because judicial immunity
would bar Tuggerson’s claim. See Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit,
927 F.3d 1123, 1133 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining district courts can
dismiss a pro se complaint with prejudice if amending the complaint
would be futile, and amending a complaint would be futile when
the pro se party could not state a viable claim even if the court gave
him leave to amend his complaint). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.