Farris v. Suter

D.C. Circuit

Farris v. Suter

98 F. App'x 10

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 2004

DocketNo. 03-5331

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 F. App'x 10 (Farris v. Suter) 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

Farris v. Suter, 98 F. App'x 10 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

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 filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJURED that the district court’s judgment filed October 24, 2003 be affirmed, because the court correctly held that appellees are entitled to absolute immunity. See, e.g., Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C.Cir.1993) (per curiam) (holding that “immunity applies to all acts of auxiliary court personnel that are ‘basic and integral part[s] of the judicial function,’ unless those acts are done ‘in the clear absence of all jurisdiction’ ”) (quoting Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir.1987)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJURED that the district court’s judgment filed October 24, 2003 be affirmed, because the court correctly held that appellees are entitled to absolute immunity. See, e.g., Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C.Cir.1993) (per curiam) (holding that “immunity applies to all acts of auxiliary court personnel that are ‘basic and integral part[s] of the judicial function,’ unless those acts are done ‘in the clear absence of all jurisdiction’ ”) (quoting Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir.1987)).

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)

98 F. App'x 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farris-v-suter-cadc-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack