Evans v. Brandt

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 16, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1772
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSEPH MILLER EVANS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01772 (UNA) ) RAINEY BRANDT, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an

Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. Upon review, the IFP

Application is granted, and for the reasons explained below, and the Complaint and this case are

dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues a Judge of the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia. See Compl. at 1–2. He alleges that, in 2012, Defendant “unlawfully

confined” him at the D.C. Jail, based on false charges of sexual assault and possession of a weapon,

and that he was unlawfully held for five years without a trial. See id. at 3–4. He demands $5

million in damages. See id. at 4.

Applicable here, a court is immune from suit for actions taken in the performance of its

duties. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Judges are absolutely immune for “all actions

taken in the judge's judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence of all

jurisdiction.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Mireles v.

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (acknowledging that a long line of Supreme Court precedents have

found that a “judge is immune from a suit for money damages”); Caldwell v. Kagan, 865 F. Supp. 2d 35, 42 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Judges have absolute immunity for any actions taken in a judicial or

quasi-judicial capacity.”). “The scope of the judge’s jurisdiction must be construed broadly where

the issue is the immunity of the judge.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). Further,

“a judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done

maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” Id.; see also Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11 (“[J]udicial

immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice.”).

Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

Date: June 16, 2026

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge