Darrell W. McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Darrell W. McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2023–2025 · 3 courts · …exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ftca, and absent compliance with the statute's requirement the district court was without jurisdiction. at p. 222 ≈ altered
91 citation events (62 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Sherman Terrell Tippit v. C. Wendell Manning, ET AL.
W.D. La. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the federal judges were performing a judicial function by ruling in mcafee's case . . . .
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Akins v. Morehouse
W.D. La. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the federal judges were performing a judicial function by ruling in mcafee's case . . . .
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) McCraney v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company
E.D. La. · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ftca, and absent compliance with the statute's requirement the district court was without jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Brooks v. Hank
S.D. Miss. · 2022 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a constitutional claim does not arise under the act and is barred by sovereign immunity.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Montgomery, Jr. - Adams-II v. Anderson
E.D. La. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ftca, and absent compliance with the statute's requirement the district court was without jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Nixon-Clark v. United States
W.D. La. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ftca, and absent compliance with the statute's requirement the district court was without jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Brown v. United States of America
S.D. Tex. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ftca, and absent compliance with the statute's requirement the district court was without jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Latanya Holmes v. Edwinique Jackson et al
E.D. La. · 2026 · confidence medium
Nov. 19, 2010) (holding that the “subjective intent of the private citizen is not determinative in providing a basis for state action”); Marts v. Hines, 68 F.3d 134, 136 (5th Cir. 1995) (“‘mere conclusory allegations of conspiracy cannot, absent reference to material facts,’ state a substantial claim of federal conspiracy.”) (citing McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1989).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Samuel Barker v. Daniel Dysart, ET AL. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. La. · 2026 · confidence medium
Judges enjoy absolute immunity from an action for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacities, “‘even when such acts are . . . alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.’” McAfee v. 5th Cir. Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of authority[.]”)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Trimble v. United States
N.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Davis, 961 F. 2d at 57 ; McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Preston v. Bass
W.D. La. · 2025 · confidence medium
Mere "conclusory allegations of conspiracy cannot, absent reference to material facts, state a substantial claim of federal conspiracy.” McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hicks v. Smith County
E.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
Though a prefiling injunction is “the most stringent sanction” that courts may impose upon abusive litigants, Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 196 (5th Cir. 1993), plaintiff’s previous cases show that these sanctions “have proved inadequate.” McAfee v. 5th Cir. Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Steele v. USPS
5th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
See 5 U.S.C. § 704 ; McAfee v. 5th Cir. Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lenske v. The United States of America
N.D. Miss. · 2022 · confidence medium
McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Rise v. United States, 630 F.2d 1068, 1071 (5th Cir. 1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reece v. Hamm
M.D. La. · 2021 · confidence medium
McAfee v. Fifth Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pollard v. Smith-Rayford
S.D. Miss. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional perquisite to suit under the Tort Claims Act, and absent compliance with the statute’s requirement [a] district court [is] without jurisdiction.” McAffee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ades v. U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Fiscal Service
E.D. Tex. · 2021 · confidence medium
Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 834 (5th Cir. 2019); McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lee v. LNU
W.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the Tort Claims Act, and absent compliance with the statute’s requirement [a] district court [is] without jurisdiction.” McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 223-23 (5th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. United States of America (2×)
M.D. La. · 2019 · confidence medium
McAfee v. Fifth Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Hinojosa v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 506 F. App’x 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) FINK v. KIRCHNER
D.N.J. · 2019 · confidence medium
Aug. 23, 2012) (applying FTCA exhaustion requirement to suit against United States based on decisions of judges) (citing McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (Sth Cir.1989) (affirming dismissal of claims against judicial officers for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Neuman v. United States, No. 07-CV-0362-MJR, 2008 U.S. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Florence v. Garcia
5th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 ; Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Priester v. Lowndes Cty., 354 F.3d 414 , 423 n.9 (5th Cir. 2004); McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Derrick Brunson v. K. Nichols
5th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Therefore, Brunson’s complaint has alleged more than a “conclusory allegation!; ] of conspiracy.” McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Randell Laws v. Lynn Hughes
5th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
See § 1985(3); Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir.2009); Fontenot v. Texas, 44 F.3d 1004 (5th Cir.1994); McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Enzio Powell, II v. J. Martinez
5th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Powell’s “mere conclusory allegations of conspiracy cannot, absent reference to material facts, state a substantial claim of federal conspiracy.” McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benjie Johnson v. Hope Village Apartments
5th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
As we previously have explained, “[exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the [FTCA], and absent compliance with the statute’s requirement the district court [is] without jurisdiction.” McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1083 , 110 S.Ct. 1141 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Life Partners Inc. v. United States
5th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Diaz v. United States
S.D. Miss. · 2011 · confidence medium
“Exhaustion of administrative remedies [under 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a) ] is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the Tort Claims Act, and absent compliance with the statute’s requirement the ... court [is] without jurisdiction.” McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1083 , 110 S.Ct. 1141 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Department of Public Safety v. United States
S.D. Miss. · 2004 · confidence medium
“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the Tort Claims Act, and absent compliance with the statute’s requirement [a] district court [is] without jurisdiction.” McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 223-23 (5th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hicks v. Bexar County, Tex. (2×)
W.D. Tex. · 1997 · confidence medium
Schuldt, 894 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir.1990); McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, 493 U.S. 1083 , 110 S.Ct. 1141 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1990); Johnson v. Kegans, 870 F.2d 992, 995 (5th Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, 492 U.S. 921 , 109 S.Ct. 3250 , 106 L.Ed.2d 596 (1989); and Krempp v. Dobbs, 775 F.2d 1319, 1321 (5th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Louis A. Csoka v. United States Government
7th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 223-224 (5th Cir.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnnie Louis McAlpine v. United States of America and Federal Bureau of Prisons
10th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pan American Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Dan Lee v. Ken Shelin and Wendy Gould, Pan American Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Dan Lee v. David A. Kessler, Gerald Guest, Ed Ballitch, Ken Shelin and Wendy Gould
6th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
"Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the Tort Claims Act, and absent compliance with the statute's requirement the district court was without jurisdiction." McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1083 , 110 S.Ct. 1141 (1990). 40 The plaintiffs contend that exhaustion would be pointless.
cited Cited "see" Adeoye v. United States
E.D. Tex. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAffee, 884 F.2d at 222–23 (5th Cir. 1989) * * * Even if sovereign immunity did not apply, the Court would nonetheless dismiss each of Plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
discussed Cited "see" Sibley v. Dick
M.D. La. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir. 1989) (stating that exhaustion of administrative remedies under the FTCA is jurisdictional).
discussed Cited "see" McKendall v. United States
E.D. La. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir. 1989). 72 Johnson v. United States, 460 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 113 (1979)). 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (b). 73 Id. 74 Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 162 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Brown v. Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 589-90 (5th Cir. 1999)). 75 Trinity Marine Prod., Inc. v. United States, 812 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods.
cited Cited "see" Jackson v. Small Business Administration
N.D. Tex. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Fisher v. United States
E.D. La. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1989). 22 R.
discussed Cited "see" Julio Cardenas v. Jody Young (2×)
5th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited "see" Ruben Navarro v. City of San Juan, Texas, e
5th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Cir. Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1989) (“It is now well settled in this Circuit that mere conclusoiy allegations of conspiracy cannot, absent reference to material facts, state a substantial claim of federal conspiracy.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
discussed Cited "see" Powell v. City of Berwyn
N.D. Ill. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
As the Seventh Circuit has stated, however, “ ‘[a] party may not cry ‘conspiracy’ and throw himself on the jury’s mercy.’ ” Kelley v. Myler, 149 F.3d 641, 649 (7th Cir.1998) (quoting Gramenos v. Jewel Cos., Inc., 797 F.2d 432, 436 (7th Cir.1986)); see McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1989) (“mere conclusory allegations of conspiracy cannot, absent reference to material facts, state a substantial claim of federal conspiracy” (citation and quotation omitted)).
cited Cited "see" Ruben Guerrero v. Travis County ,Texas
5th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Cir. Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Butcher v. Guthrie
5th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Crawford v. United States Department of Homeland Security
5th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (holding that court lacks jurisdiction over FTCA claims that are not administratively exhausted). 5 .
discussed Cited "see" Dickey v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc. - Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing - replaces opinion filed 7/25/02
Ill. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5 th Circuit Judges , 884 F.2d 221 (5 th Cir. 1989) (no preemption violation where Federal Tort Claims Act ( 28 U.S.C.A. §§1346 (b), 2675(a)) requires a claimant timely present the claim to the appropriate federal agency as a jurisdiction prerequisite to filing suit).
discussed Cited "see" Dickey v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc. (2×)
Ill. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1989) (no preemption violation where Federal Tort Claims Act ( 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346 (b), 2675(a) (West 1993)) requires a claimant to timely present the claim to the appropriate federal agency as a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing suit).
cited Cited "see" Poynter v. United States
W.D. La. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221 (5th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Lockhart v. United States
N.D. Ind. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that some form of exhaustion of administrative relief is required before FTCA claim may be filed in federal court).
cited Cited "see" Doe v. Foti
La. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See McAfee v. Fifth Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied 493 U.S. 1083 , 110 S.Ct. 1141 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1989).
examined Cited "see" Raymundo R. Mendoza v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice (3×)
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. 884 F.2d at 223 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Darrell W. McAFEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
5TH CIRCUIT JUDGES, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
89-3146.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 26, 1989.
884 F.2d 221
Darrell W. McAfee, Rosharon, Tex., pro se., John Volz, U.S. Atty., Eileen Gleasen Shaver, Asst. U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Garwood, Higginbotham, Per Curiam, Smith.
Cited by 69 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #47,093 of 633,719
Citer courts: E.D. Louisiana (1) · W.D. Louisiana (1) · S.D. Texas (1)
PER CURIAM:

Appellant Darrell W. McAfee moves this Court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint that alleged that a federal magistrate, a federal district judge, a panel of this Court, and a deputy clerk oi this Court conspired against him. McAfee has failed to present a non-frivolous issue for this Court’s review, i.e., an issue of arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Loc.R. 42.2.

A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(d) where the claim has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). There is no arguable basis for McAfee’s complaint, and it was properly dismissed as frivolous.

Judges are absolutely immune against an action for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacities, “ ‘even when such acts are ... alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.’ ” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1104, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted). The federal judges were performing a judicial function by ruling in McAfee’s case and thus are absolutely immune notwithstanding McAfee’s allegations of conspiracy. McAfee has failed to allege any facts in support of his claim that the judges and the deputy clerk conspired against him. It is now well settled in this Circuit that “ ‘mere conclusory allegations of conspiracy cannot, absent reference to material facts,’ state a substantial claim of federal conspiracy.” Brinkmann v. Johnston, 793 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir.1986) (citation omitted).

McAfee next contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to amend his complaint to allege that the judicial conspiracy was actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).

The amendment proffered by McAfee was futile, and thus the district court was justified in denying leave to amend. See Boda v. United States, 698 F.2d 1174, 1176 (11th Cir.1983). McAfee failed timely to file an administrative claim with the appropriate government agency as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdic[*223] tional prerequisite to suit under the Tort Claims Act, and absent compliance with the statute’s requirement the district court was without jurisdiction. Rise v. United States, 630 F.2d 1068, 1071 (6th Cir.1980). Moreover, McAfee failed to allege a claim under the Tort Claims Act. McAfee’s claim is founded on the United States Constitution, not state tort law. A constitutional claim does not arise under the Act and is barred by sovereign immunity. Boda v. U.S., 698 F.2d at 1176.

McAfee contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 for filing a frivolous complaint. This issue is without merit.

Rule 11 provides that the signature of a party on a complaint constitutes a certificate that the complaint “is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith-argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” The rule provides that a district court shall impose an appropriate sanction for violation of the rule. For the reasons previously discussed, McAfee’s complaint is not well grounded in the law and does not present a good faith argument for the modification of the law; thus his complaint is in violation of rule 11, and the imposition of sanctions was warranted.

McAfee also contends that the imposition of sanctions of $30 was an abuse of discretion because he is poor. McAfee has filed at least ten civil rights suits in the federal district courts. Seven of these suits were dismissed as frivolous, and in four instances the district court imposed sanctions ranging from $10 to $25. Because lesser sanctions have proved inadequate, the imposition of sanctions of $30 was not an abuse of discretion.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 authorizes this court to impose sanctions on an appellant that pursues a frivolous appeal. There is no arguable merit to McAfee’s, appeal and it is frivolous within the meaning of rule 38. See Lyons v. Sheetz, 834 F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir.1987). McAfee is warned that further frivolous appeals will result in substantial sanctions.