Opinion
No. 07-5234.
Filed On: December 19, 2007.
BEFORE: Tacha, Chief Judge, McConnell and Gorsuch, Circuit Judges.
Chief Judge Tacha, Judge McConnell, and Judge Gorsuch are judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 291(a).
ORDER
Upon consideration of (1) appellant's emergency motion for a preliminary injunction; (2) appellant's emergency motion for expedited consideration of motion for preliminary injunction; (3) appellant's supplemental brief in support of emergency motion for the issuance of preliminary injunction; (4) appellant's second supplemental brief in support of emergency motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction; (5) appellant's praecipe and letter in support of motion for expedited consideration of the July 10, 2007 motion for a preliminary injunction against the Committee on Admissions for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Virginia State Bar, and the Supreme Court of Virginia; (6) appellant's motion to disqualify Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Catherine Crooks Hill; (7) appellant's motion to order the empaneling of a grand jury and appoint a special prosecutor; (8) appellant's motion to disqualify the judges of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit; (9) Virginia state defendants' motion for summary affirmance; (10) federal defendants' motion for summary affirmance; (11) Committee on Admissions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals's motion for summary affirmance; (12) all responses and replies to the above-listed filings; and (13) the record of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, it is.
ORDERED that appellant's emergency motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. Appellant has failed to show that he meets the standards for an injunction pending appeal. See Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977). It is. FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's emergency motion for expedited consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction be dismissed as moot. It is.
FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's motion to disqualify Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Catherine Crooks Hill be denied. It is.
FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's motion to order the empaneling of a grand jury and appoint a special prosecutor be denied. It is.
FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's motion to disqualify the judges of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit be dismissed as moot because Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. designated the judges of this special panel, each of whom sit outside of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to hear and decide this appeal. It is.
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance of the Committee on Admissions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals be granted in part and the district court's dismissal of damages claims against this defendant be summarily affirmed. Summary disposition of this question is appropriate because the merits are so clear as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding its disposition exists. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The Committee on Admissions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is entitled to absolute judicial immunity against damages claims when acting within its jurisdiction. See Simons v. Bellinger, 643 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1980); see also Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 479 (1983) (holding that bar admission proceedings were judicial in nature). It is.
FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary affirmance of the federal defendants and the Virginia state defendants be granted in part and the dismissal of all damages claims against federal and state judges be summarily affirmed, with one exception. Summary disposition of these claims is appropriate because the merits are so clear as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding its disposition exists. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc., 819 F.2d at 297. The district court correctly determined that appellant's damages claims against all federal and state judge defendants are barred by absolute judicial immunity because appellant's challenges clearly concern acts committed within those defendants' judicial jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10-12 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). The sole exception is appellant's damages claims against Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. relating to alleged statements during the Chief Justice's confirmation hearing before the United States Senate, which do not stem from a judicial function. It is.
FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed, appellant shall show cause why this appeal shall not be summarily affirmed on grounds other than those relied upon by the district court:
(1) as to the Virginia state defendants, on alternative grounds raised in the district court, see R. Doc. 9 at 4 (Eleventh Amendment immunity, abstention, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and/or prosecutorial immunity); and
(2) as to defendant Editor in Chief, Legal Times, on alternative grounds raised in the district court, see R. Doc. 21 at 8-13 (that the action is time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations and/or the complaint fails to state a claim against this defendant); and
(3) as to the federal defendants, on the jurisdictional ground of sovereign immunity.
The show-cause response may not exceed twenty (20) pages. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the appeal for lack of prosecution. See D.C. Cir. R. 38.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending resolution of the remainder of the appeal.