Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-00894
05-09-2016
Nathanael L. Reynolds, Plaintiff, v. Judge Martelle Morrison et al., Defendants.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date: 5/11/2016
Description. Pro Se Gen. Civ. MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen and dismiss a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. See id. § 1915A(b).
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Charleston County Detention Center in Charleston, South Carolina. He has brought suit against two state judges in South Carolina. Plaintiff complains about their rulings, see Compl. ¶ IV, and he seeks $90,000 from each defendant. In addition, plaintiff seeks this Court's intervention.
Judges are absolutely immune from a lawsuit based, as here, on acts taken during the performance of their official duties. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Thanh Vong Hoai v. Superior Court for District of Columbia, 344 Fed. Appx. 620 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Smith v. Scalia, 44 F. Supp. 3d 28, 40-42 (D.D.C. 2014) (examining cases). In addition, this Court generally lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts. See United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts "generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.") (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: May 9, 2016
/s/_________
United States District Judge