Opinion
Civil Action 22-1107 (UNA)
05-19-2022
FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. MARK S. DAVIS Chief Judge, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TREVOR N. McFADDEN, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or is frivolous).
Plaintiff, a resident of Tallahassee, Florida, has sued the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Although the eight-page handwritten complaint is difficult to decipher, it stems from Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the Chief Judge's rulings in one or more cases. See Compl. at 2 (“[D]efendant Davis ha[s] manipulated the legal process of either abusing his power or discretion with an illegal improper treasonous motive and sadistic intent to dismiss valid and legitimate constitutional claims[.]”).
An “in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous . . . if it is clear from the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims asserted.” Crisafi v. Holland 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Judges enjoy absolute immunity from a lawsuit, such as this, based on actions properly taken in their judicial capacity. Moore v. Burger, 655 F.2d 1265, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (citing cases); see accord Caldwell v. Kagan, 455 Fed. App'x. 1 (D.C. Cir.2011) (citing Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir.1993)); Jafari v. United States, 83 F.Supp.3d 277, 280 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 621 Fed.Appx. 676 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“reviewing and attributing weight to evidence, granting and denying hearings, issuing decisions, and generally adjudicating the plaintiff's case . . . are quintessential official judicial acts”). Such “immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Further, a complaint against judges who have “done nothing more than their duty” is “a meritless action.” Fleming v. United States, 847 F.Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.