UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JAIME SCOTT, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-1342-KKM-AEP KIMBERLY SHARPE BYRD, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________ ORDER Pro se plaintiff Jaime Scott moves for a temporary restraining order against

Florida judges Kimberly Sharpe Byrd and Dustin Anderson, the Pasco County court system, and Sharyn Mary O’Melia. TRO Mot. (Doc. 3). She also files two motions

in support of that TRO motion, (Docs. 10, 19), as well as non-motion filings, (Docs. 9, 13, 17, 28, & 29). Because Scott has not shown a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits of any of her claims or that the other equitable factors weigh in her favor, her motion is denied. As in reaching that outcome I conclude that judicial immunity bars some of Scott’s claims and I lack subject-matter jurisdiction

over the others, I also dismiss her complaint without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND

is action arises from a neighborhood dispute between Scott and her next- door neighbor, Sharyn O’Melia. According to her sworn complaint, Scott lives with

her minor child in Pasco County, Florida. Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 1–2. She claims that, starting in August 2024, O’Melia “engaged in a . . . campaign of harassment,

surveillance, intimidation, defamation, coercion, stalking, voyeurism, and emotional torment directed” toward Scott and her family. ¶ 10. Her core complaint seems to be that O’Melia “has installed multiple surveillance devices directed solely” at

Scott’s home and yard and has shared images captured by these devices with their neighbors. ¶¶ 11, 13. She also claims that O’Melia erected a vulgar sign visible

from Scott’s backyard and that O’Melia coordinated with other neighbors to block the entrance to Scott’s property “using a large truck.” ¶¶ 15, 17; Scott

Decl. ((Doc. 3) at 7–10) at 2; (Doc. 4) (Exhibit 26). Scott and O’Melia have been in court before. Compl. ¶ 18. In a state case before Judge Kimberly Sharpe Byrd, O’Melia sought and obtained an ex parte

injunction against Scott under Florida’s anti-stalking law. TRO Mot. at 2; Mot. for Serv. by U.S. Marshal or Clerk Due to Existing Inj. (Doc. 8) at 1;

§ 784.0485, Fla. Stat. Scott claims she did not receive notice of this injunction, which 2 became final on December 6, 2024, until it was served at her house on January 15,

2025. TRO Mot. at 3; Scott Decl. at 1. She also claims that Judge Byrd repeatedly violated her due process rights in that proceeding, including by “[the] ongoing

restriction of [Scott’s] Second Amendment rights, [the] denial of hearings, [the] denial of [access to] records, and [the] denial of all motions to vacate.” TRO Mot. at

3. Scott filed her own action against O’Melia in state court in May 2025 seeking a “protective injunction.” Judge Dustin Anderson denied that motion. (Doc. 1-2) at 32.

Scott sued O’Melia, Judge Byrd, Judge Anderson, and the Pasco County court system in this Court on May 27, 2025. Compl. She alleges under

that Judges Byrd and Anderson and the Pasco County court system violated her right to due process, unlawfully retaliated against her, and wrongfully refused to

recuse themselves. ¶¶ 22–28 (Counts I & II). Scott claims under § 1983 that Judge Byrd and the Pasco County court system also violated her Second Amendment rights by enjoining her from possessing firearms. ¶¶ 38–40 (Count

V). She pleads many claims against O’Melia, including that O’Melia unlawfully surveilled her under § 1983 (Count III), falsely imprisoned her under § 1983 (Count

VI), abused process and filed vexatious suits (Count VII), committed intentional 3 infliction of emotional distress (Count X), invaded her privacy and committed

voyeurism in violation of § 810.14, Florida Statutes (Count XI), and engaged in cyberstalking and “coordinated electronic harassment” in violation of

§ 784.048(1)(d), Florida Statutes (Count XII). Compl. ¶¶ 29–33, 41–46, 56–71. And she says under § 1983 that all four defendants1 violated her First Amendment

rights by chilling her speech and abusing legal process (Count IV). ¶¶ 34–37.2 Scott moves for a temporary restraining order. TRO Mot. She seeks an order “halting all enforcement of the injunction” entered by Judge Byrd, vacating all

other orders “issued in the state injunction case,” and requiring O’Melia to remove “all cameras, recording devices, or surveillance tools . . . that face or capture [Scott’s]

home, yard, or private areas” and prohibiting her from installing new cameras, among

1 On June 3, 2025, Scott sought to add Judge Kemba Johnson Lewis as a defendant. (Doc. 23). e document Scott filed, titled “Amendment to Federal Complaint to Add Defendant Judge Kemba Johnson Lewis and Allege Judicial Misconduct,” is in the rough form of a complaint but omits any allegations related to the defendants named in the complaint. I liberally construe this document as a motion to amend Scott’s complaint, and as her complaint is dismissed for the reasons explained below, I deny it as moot.

2 Scott also includes counts for “Permanent Injunction and Relocation Order” (Count VIII) and “Preservation of Evidence” (Count IX). Compl. ¶¶ 47–55. ese “counts” are more in the nature of relief than causes of action. ,

(11th Cir. 2004) (“[A]ny motion or suit for a traditional injunction must be predicated upon a cause of action . . . . ere is no such thing as a suit for a traditional injunction in the abstract.”). 4 other relief. TRO Mot. at 4–5. Scott files several other motions and papers in support

of her TRO. (Docs. 9, 10, 17, 19, 28, & 29). In response to her motion, I ordered Scott to explain (1) “why the judicial

defendants are not immune from the requested relief,” (2) “on what legal basis the Court has equitable power to ‘halt[] all enforcement of the [state court] injunction”

and ‘[v]acate all orders issued in the state injunction case,’ ” and (3) “why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Sharyn Mary O’Melia.” (Doc. 12) (alterations in the original) (quoting TRO Mot. at 4).

Scott has responded. (Doc. 13). II. LEGAL STANDARD

To obtain a temporary restraining order, a movant must demonstrate (1) that the movant enjoys a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits”; (2) that the

movant will suffer an “irreparable injury” without an injunction; (3) that the injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the enjoined party; and (4) that the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. ,

, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

5 III. ANALYSIS

Because Scott fails to show that the four equitable factors weigh in her favor, her motion for a temporary restraining order is denied. Analyzing her likelihood of

success on the merits also reveals that absolute judicial immunity bars her claims against the judicial defendants and that subject-matter jurisdiction over the

remaining claims against O’Melia is lacking. Accordingly, her complaint is dismissed without prejudice. A. Scott Fails To Show at She Is Likely To Succeed On Her Claims Against the Judicial Defendants “A judge enjoys absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within

the jurisdiction of his court.” ,

(11th Cir. 2018). Immunity applies when the judge (1) acted in his judicial capacity and (2) did not act in a “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” ,

(11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (quoting

, 356–57 (1978)). Actions that “constitute[] a normal judicial function” are generally in the

judge’s judicial capacity. ,

(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). And an action is only taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” if the

court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. ,

, 754

6 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). at is, the judge must have clearly lacked the power

to adjudicate the case. So long as a judge undertakes a judicial act and does not clearly lack subject-matter jurisdiction, “immunity applies even when the judge’s acts

are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or her jurisdiction.” ,

.

“is immunity extends to almost every suit seeking injunctive relief.” , No. 8:24-CV-2164-KKM-TGW,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2025) (citing

). Injunctive relief against a state-court judge is

available only if the judge “violated a declaratory decree or declaratory relief [is] otherwise [] unavailable” andthere is no adequate remedy at law. , 808 F. App’x

at 754; ,

. State appellate review is an adequate legal remedy. , 437 F.3d at 1073–74.

Based on the evidence Scott has submitted, immunity bars her claims against the state judges. She offers no basis for concluding that their challenged acts—such as issuing an injunction, denying an injunction, refusing to recuse, or dismissing

Scott’s motions—are not normal judicial functions. Compl. ¶¶ 23–28; ,

. Nor does Scott show that the judges acted with a clear lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. Indeed, she claims Judge Byrd enjoined her under 7 § 784.0485, Florida Statutes, which gives a Florida circuit court judge jurisdiction

to grant an ex parte temporary injunction to prevent stalking. Mot. for Serv. by U.S. Marshal or Clerk Due to Existing Inj. (Doc. 8) at 1. Judicial immunity thus bars

her claims against the judges as to damages. She likewise fails to show that she lacks an adequate remedy at law such that

injunctive relief is available. State appellate review is an adequate legal remedy, , 437 F.3d at 1073–74, and a review of the state court docket3 reveals that Scott has availed herself of that remedy, Notice of Appeal, ,

No. 512024DR004221DRAXWS (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. May 22, 2025). Accordingly, judicial immunity bars her demand for injunctive relief. And as her claims against

the court system are based on the same acts, absolute quasi-judicial immunity bars them. ,

(11th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (“Nonjudicial officials have absolute immunity for their duties that are integrally related to the judicial process.”); , No. 8:24-CV-709- KKM-TGW,

, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2024).

3 Courts may take judicial notice of court records. , ,

, 876 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). 8 Scott makes several arguments in response. First, she contends that judicial

immunity does not apply because the judges acted based on fraud and without due process, citing ,

(1878), and

,

(10th Cir. 1989). (Doc. 13) at 1–2. holds that “for fraud to lay a foundation for an independent action, it

must be such that it was not in issue in the former action nor could it have been put in issue by the reasonable diligence of the opposing party.” ,

(11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (citing ,

). Fraud or misrepresentations intrinsic to the action—such as perjury—do not void a judgment. e fraud that Scott alleges is of this sort, including

“failure to disclose related cases,” “fraudulent use of secret recordings,” and “material omissions to the court.” (Doc. 19) at 2. Yet even if they did render the orders here

void, these sorts of alleged misdeeds do not vitiate subject-matter jurisdiction such that a judge would lose judicial immunity. And is not on point—it does not involve a suit against a judge.

.

Second, Scott argues that the judicial defendants were not performing judicial acts because (1) “[d]enying access to court records is an administrative act, not a

judicial one,” (2) “the injunction was based on perjured claims and unlawful 9 evidence,” and (3) “the judicial defendants engaged in unconstitutional conduct

outside their judicial role” and “knowingly participate[d] in or enable[d] due process violations.” (Doc. 13) at 2. e authorities that Scott relies on are again off base.4

Controlling access to court records by sealing or otherwise is a judicial function in which “[t]he judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial

process.” , No. 614CV1953ORL28TBS,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2016) (quoting , No. Civ. 1:96-cv-3052-WCO,

(N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2002)). And judicial acts do not become any less judicial acts because they are based on impermissible evidence or are otherwise

unlawful. ,

. Scott has not shown that judicial immunity is inapplicable.

4 holds that absolute immunity did not protect a judge from a § 1983 action based on the demotion and discharge of a court employee.

(1988). holds that conspirators who conspired with a judge to obtain an illegal injunction are not immune from suit under § 1983,

, 27–29 (1980), and does not hold that “when judges knowingly participate in or enable due process violations, they lose immunity,” (Doc. 13) at 2. Neither case is instructive here. 10 Having reviewed all of Scott’s filings, I conclude that she has not shown a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her claims against the judicial defendants. B. Scott Has Not Shown Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Her Claims Against O’Melia

Scott fails to show that subject-matter jurisdiction exists over her claims against O’Melia, so she is not likely to succeed on the merits of those claims. In her response to this Court’s order, Scott claims subject-matter jurisdiction under

(federal question) and § 1343 (civil rights). (Doc. 13) at 5–6. Neither statute confers jurisdiction. And I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under

over Scott’s state-law claims. Subject-matter jurisdiction is absent in Scott’s federal claims against O’Melia

because those claims are “so insubstantial, implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” ,

(1998) (quoting

(1974)). Scott’s federal claims against O’Melia arise exclusively under the federal Constitution, and she cites only

as a statutory basis for her claims. Compl. ¶¶ 29–33 (Count III – right to privacy);

11 ¶¶ 34–37 (Count IV – First Amendment and Due Process); ¶¶ 41–42 (Count

VI – arguably Fourth Amendment). Scott further alleges that O’Melia is a private individual. ¶ 6. Yet private individuals acting as such cannot violate the federal

Constitution. ,

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“e federal constitution does not protect against injuries by purely private

individuals—that is, individuals who cannot be considered as acting for state or local government.”). Accordingly, Scott’s constitutional claims against O’Melia are so “completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy,” so neither

nor § 1343 provide jurisdiction. ,

(quoting ,

).

Scott belatedly attempts to cure this problem by citing another federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, and by trying to cast O’Melia as a state actor. (Doc. 13) at 5–6.

Yet § 2261A is a criminal statute, which Scott may not enforce, ,

(M.D. Fla. 1971) (“[C]riminal statutes can neither be enforced by civil action nor by private parties.” (citation omitted)), and, in

any event, Scott may not amend her complaint in a brief, ,

(11th Cir. 2013). No evidence in

Scott’s filings indicates that O’Melia conspired with the judicial defendants, nor does 12 Scott allege such a jurisdictional theory in her complaint. Accordingly, subject-

matter jurisdiction over her federal claims is lacking. ough Scott neglects to cite any jurisdictional basis for her Florida-law

claims,

(a) would provide supplemental jurisdiction over those claims were there jurisdiction over her federal claims. But because, as explained

below, the claims against the judicial defendants must be dismissed and subject- matter jurisdiction over her other federal claims is lacking, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. § 1367(c)(3).

Because judicial immunity bars Scotts claims against the judicial defendants and I lack subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims against O’Melia, Scott has

failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. C. Scott Fails To Show Any Of e Other ree Factors Support Granting A Temporary Restraining Order Even if she had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, Scott’s motion would still be due to be denied. Scott does not explain in her TRO motion that she

will suffer an “irreparable injury” without an injunction, that the injury to her outweighs the injury to the judicial defendants and O’Melia, or that the injunction

is not adverse to the public interest. , 403 F.3d at 1225–26. “Failure to show

13 any of the four factors is fatal.”

,

(11th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the other three factors each independently support denying Scott’s motion. D. Scott’s Complaint Must Be Dismissed

Analyzing Scott’s likelihood of success on the merits reveals that (1) judicial immunity bars her claims against the judicial defendants, and (2) I lack subject-

matter jurisdiction over her claims against O’Melia. Because I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims,

(c)(3),

dismissal of her whole complaint without prejudice is proper. ,

(2006) (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.”);

, No. 8:25-cv-1120-KKM-AAS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2025) (“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from

ultimate assessment of damages.” (quoting ,

(1991))). After moving for a temporary restraining order, Scott also filed an

“Amendment to Federal Complaint” “to include Judge Kemba Johnson Lewis” as a defendant. (Doc. 26) at 1. e document follows the form of a complaint, and the clerk docketed it as such. An amended complaint renders an earlier filed complaint

14 “a legal nullity.” ,

(11th Cir. 2016).

Because Scott’s “Amendment” contains no claims against O’Melia, Judge Byrd, or Judge Anderson, it moots out her motion for a temporary restraining order if it is an

amended complaint. Yet because pro se filings are liberally construed, ,

(11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and it does not seem that

Scott intended to abandon her claims against O’Melia, Judge Byrd, or Judge Anderson, , (Docs. 28 & 29), I construe the amendment as a motion to amend her complaint and deny it as moot.5

IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:

1. e plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion to Vacate State Injunction (Doc. 3) is DENIED.

2. e plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. e plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than June 25, 2025.

5 If Scott’s filing were best read as an amended complaint displacing her prior complaint, it would be subject to dismissal without prejudice for the same reasons as the claims against Judge Byrd and Judge Anderson. ,

, at *1. 15 3. The plaintiff’s Motion to Escalate Emergency TRO for Immediate Review

by District Judge (Doc. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT.

4. The plaintiff’s Motion to Acknowledge Fraud Upon the Court and

Misrepresentation of Material Facts in Prior State Proceedings (Doc. 19) is DENIED AS MOOT.

5. The plaintiff’s construed Motion to Amend (Doc. 26) is DENIED AS

MOOT.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 11, 2025.

pal ,

United States District Judge

16