Finch v. Sullivan
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEP -7 2011 ) Clerk, U S DiSk:' Shawn Martin Finch, ) Courts fo'r the D;;~~c~ Btankruptcy o COlumbIa ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11 1bO ~ ) Emmet G. Sullivan, ) ) Defendant. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review ofthe plaintiff's pro se complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a complaint upon
a determination that the complaint, among other enumerated grounds, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted).
The plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident. In the complaint captioned "Action
Involves Discrimination," the plaintiff sues United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of
this Court for "dismissal of cases and denying a fair hearing." Complaint at 1. He seeks '"to have
[d]ismissed cases reopened and trialed [sic]." Id. at 2. Judges are absolutely immune from
lawsuits predicated, as here, on their official acts. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219,225 (1988);
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,355-57 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C.
Cir. 1993). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this
kl5.!Hu- Memorandum Opinion.
'Ul1iteiStates District Judge Date: /er-i:;L 3 ,2011 N 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Finch v. Sullivan (Finch v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.