Bolton v. Salerno

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3334
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT L. BOLTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 25 - 3334 (UNA)

ROBERT A. SALERNO,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Robert L. Bolton, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Judge Salerno of

the District of Columbia Superior Court, alleging that Judge Salerno has deprived him of various

constitutional rights while presiding over his pending criminal case. ECF No. 1, at 6.1 He seeks

$7 million in damages. Id. at 5. He also has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF

No. 2. For the following reasons, the court will grant Mr. Bolton’s motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the case because Judge Salerno is immune from suit.

The court accepts the following facts from Mr. Bolton’s complaint as true. Mr. Bolton has

been charged in the Superior Court with a criminal offense, and Judge Salerno ordered that he be

held in pretrial detention without a bond. ECF No. 1, at 6. Mr. Bolton contends that his detention

is unlawful because he is nonviolent and thus entitled to a reasonable bond, and because no grand

jury has returned an indictment against him. Id. In Mr. Bolton’s view, Judge Salerno’s detention

1 The citations to ECF No. 1 refer to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of each page rather than any internal pagination. order violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial,

and Eighth Amendment right to a reasonable bond. Id.

Judges are entitled to “absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all

actions taken in [their] judicial capacity.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (1993) (per

curiam). “Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, ‘it is a general

principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in

exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without

apprehension of personal consequences to himself.’” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per

curiam) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 337, 13 Wall. 646 (1872)). No judge is “deprived

of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his

authority.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). Rather, a judge “will be subject to

liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Id. at 356-57 (quoting

Bradley, 80 U.S. at 351). “Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity

from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11. Accordingly,

the court is required to dismiss any case brought by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis that

“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); see Coleman v. New Hampshire, 579 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (per

curiam).

Here, Mr. Bolton seeks damages against a sitting D.C. Superior Court judge for actions the

judge took in his judicial capacity. ECF No. 1, at 6. Mr. Bolton only contests Judge Salerno’s

pretrial detention order, which the court issued as part of pretrial proceedings in Mr. Bolton’s

criminal case. See D.C. Code § 23-1322 (describing the process by which a judge may order

pretrial detention). Judge Salerno “is not liable for any injuries resulting from acts within his

2 jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is construed broadly so that a judge will not be held liable unless he

acts without color of authority.” Clark v. Taylor, 627 F.2d 284, 288 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (per curiam)

(quoting Apton v. Wilson, 506 F.2d 83, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). And Mr. Bolton does not “dispute

the general jurisdiction of the Superior Court over his criminal proceeding.” Id. at 288.

Accordingly, because Judge Salerno is entitled to absolute immunity from suit, the court will grant

Mr. Bolton’s in forma pauperis application and will the court will dismiss Mr. Bolton’s complaint

and this civil action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). A contemporaneous order will issue.

LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge Date: February 18, 2026