Alpine v. Obama

D.C. Circuit

Alpine v. Obama

391 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 2010

DocketNo. 10-5128

StatusPublished

This text of 391 F. App'x 1 (Alpine v. Obama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alpine v. Obama, 391 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

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 amended brief 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 8, 2010, be affirmed. The district court correctly held that it lacks authority to determine what, if any, actions must be taken by Supreme Court Justices and employees and that they enjoy absolute immunity in the circumstances presented here. See, e.g., Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C.Cir.1993); In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, the President of the United States had no role in the actions complained of.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 amended brief 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 8, 2010, be affirmed. The district court correctly held that it lacks authority to determine what, if any, actions must be taken by Supreme Court Justices and employees and that they enjoy absolute immunity in the circumstances presented here. See, e.g., Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C.Cir.1993); In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, the President of the United States had no role in the actions complained of.

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 seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alpine-v-obama-cadc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack