Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-0294 (UNA)
02-28-2018
GEORGE CLEVELAND, III, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BRYAN HARWELL, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff brought this civil rights action against the district judge who ordered the dismissal of a civil action he filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. He demands injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.
Judges, such as the defendant in this action, enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts taken in their judicial capacities. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (finding that "judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages"). Without question, dismissal of a civil action is an action taken in the judge's judicial capacity. See Burger v. Gerber, No. 01-5238, 2001 WL 1606283, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 20, 2001) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal on judicial immunity grounds claim against United States Tax Court Judge where "[t]he action about which appellant complains - ruling on a motion to dismiss a tax court petition - was well within the judge's judicial capacity"); Thomas v. Wilkins, 61 F. Supp. 3d 13, 19 (D.D.C. 2014) (finding that "judge's decision to file or deny a party's motions or requests is an action routinely performed by a judge in the course of litigation, and thus would constitute a judicial act immune from suit"), aff'd, No. 14-5197, 2015 WL 1606933 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 23, 2015). Absent any showing by plaintiff that the judge's "actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction," Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), this defendant is "immune from damage suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process," id. at 1461 (citations omitted). Furthermore, this federal district court has no authority to review the decisions of another district court. See, e.g., Fisch v. U.S. Gov't, No. 13-2038, 2013 WL 7095043, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2013) (dismissing complaint which "takes issue with court rulings and proceedings held in the federal courts in New York" for lack of jurisdiction), appeal dismissed, No. 14-5027 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 4, 2014).
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this action with prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: 2/28/18
/s/_________
United States District Judge
See Cleveland v. Adger, No. 4:17-cv-2112 (D.S.C. Nov. 1, 2017).