Opinion
21-5102
10-27-2021
Lakshmi Arunachalam, Appellant v. Scott S. Harris, Clerk in the United States Supreme Court, et al., Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 1:20-cv-03734-UNA
BEFORE: Tatel, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed April 22, 2021, be affirmed as to appellees Scott S. Harris, Jeffrey Atkins, Peter R. Marksteiner, Jarrett B. Perlow, Michael Ames (collectively, "Clerks") and Does 1-100. The district court correctly concluded that appellant's claims against the Clerks are barred by judicial immunity. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam) ("[C]lerks, like judges, are immune from damage suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process."). Additionally, because appellant does not raise any arguments regarding the district court's dismissal of the complaint as to Does 1-100, she has forfeited her ability to do so. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived."). Finally, appellant has not shown that she is entitled to relief based on her argument that the district court's order is void.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until resolution of the remainder of the appeal.