Opinion
Civil Action 24-01553 (UNA)
09-09-2024
ORLANDO BELL, Plaintiff, v. TREVOR MCFADDEN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, has submitted a motion docketed as a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the case.
In the one-page document captioned “Motion for Adjudication of Allowing an Identified Witness to Prosecute” (cleaned up), Plaintiff alleges that U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who presided over his criminal case in the District of Columbia, “gave the greenlight” for an Assistant U.S. Attorney “to proceed as an identifieable [sic] witness through the AUSA's own admission to prosecute case no. 1:17-cr-00234-7[.]”Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asks only that “this court rule within favor in the above-mentioned matters[.]” But see In re Bell, No. 23-3121, 2023 WL 11057299, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 31, 2023) (per curiam) (noting in mandamus action to compel Judge McFadden's recusal that “the prosecutor did not testify as a witness in the case”); see also United States v. Bell, 811 F. App'x. 7 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (affirming judgment of conviction).
The Court takes judicial notice of the criminal case docket titled USA v. Johnson, 17-cr-00234, where Plaintiff is listed as the seventh co-defendant in the drug conspiracy case.
A court must “as soon as practicable” dismiss a prisoner's case against a government official if the complaint is frivolous, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1), and a “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 are absolutely immune from lawsuits predicated, as here, on their decisions rendered in a case within their jurisdiction. Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the construed complaint will be dismissed as “patently frivolous.” Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F.Supp.2d 177, 179 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 455 F. App'x. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see Fleming v. United States, 847 F.Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (deeming “meritless” an action against “federal judges who have done nothing more than their duty”). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.