From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sibley v. Alito

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Jan 16, 2009
Civil Case No. 08-1797 (RJL) (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 08-1797 (RJL).

January 16, 2009


MEMORANDUM ORDER


Plaintiff Montgomery Blair Sibley, pro se, sues the nine justices of the Supreme Court, seeking forfeiture of their offices "for their misbehaviour [sic] in office in violation of Article III, § 1 of the United States Constitution." Compl. ¶ 1.a. Plaintiff also asks this Court to enter damages against Danny Brickell, a deputy clerk for the Supreme Court, for "denial to Plaintiff of access to Court." Compl. ¶ 1.b. Because this Court does not have jurisdiction over either of these claims, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed sua sponte.

First, plaintiff asks this Court to remove the justices of the Supreme Court from office. The Constitution commits the issue of removal on impeachment of civil officers of the United States — including federal judges — to Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 2, 3. Therefore, the removal from office of the justices of the Supreme Court is a political question that is nonjusticiable by this Court. See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993); Bergen v. Edenfield, 701 F.2d 906, 908 (11th Cir. 1983) ("Congress has never given a district court the power in a civil action to enjoin an Article III judge from continuing to sit on the bench. . . ."). Because this is not a claim that can be resolved by the courts, it is hereby DISMISSED.

Second, the deputy clerk of the Supreme Court, whom plaintiff sues in his individual capacity for damages, is immune from suit. "[C]lerks, like judges, are immune from damage suits for the performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process." Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The actions plaintiff complains of here — refusal to file plaintiff's motions for failure to comply with the Supreme Court's rules — are "part and parcel of the process of adjudicating cases." Reddy v. O'Connor, 520 F. Supp. 2d 124, 130 (D.D.C. 2007). Mr. Brickell is immune from suit for the performance of these tasks, which are an integral part of the judicial process. See Reddy, 520 F. Supp. 2d at 130-31 (holding a Supreme Court clerk immune from suit for rejection of plaintiff's papers for docketing). This claim, too, is therefore DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sibley v. Alito

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Jan 16, 2009
Civil Case No. 08-1797 (RJL) (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2009)
Case details for

Sibley v. Alito

Case Details

Full title:MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. et al.…

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Jan 16, 2009

Citations

Civil Case No. 08-1797 (RJL) (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2009)