Beasley v. Chandler

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2938
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL BEASLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-02938 (UNA) ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHANDLER et al.,) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and

application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court will grant the

IFP application and dismiss the case.

Plaintiff sues D.C. Superior Court Magistrate Judge Cory M. Chandler and two prosecutors

for allegedly conspiring to hold him “in contempt of court knowing” that his “driver’s license was

suspended.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. Claiming violations of his “right under title 18 section 241

and 242,” Plaintiff requests $250,000.00 from “all t[h]ree defendants” for each of the 10 days he

“was in Jail.” Id.

In an IFP proceeding, the court must dismiss the case “at any time” it determines that the

complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from an

immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Judges and prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity

from a suit for damages predicated, as here, on their official conduct during a valid court

proceeding. Crum v. Beck, 2022 WL 4138238, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (per curiam) (citing Sindram

v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Atherton v. D.C. Office of Mayor, 567

F.3d 672, 686 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Additionally, Plaintiff’s presumed invocation of Title 18 of the U.S. Code is inapposite because sections 241 and 242 are criminal statutes that authorize “no

private right of action[.]” Crosby v. Catret, 2009 WL 117562, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam)

(citations omitted)). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/_____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS Date: February 6, 2025 United States District Judge