Hairston, Sr. v. Katsos

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 25-04473 (UNA)

)

)

JUDGE KATSAS et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants the application and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff sues three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for “One Million apiece[.]” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1. The judges, Gregory G. Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Justin R. Walker, comprised a panel that denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider “the October 3, 2025 order denying the motion to recall the mandate” in his appeal from Hairston v. Smith, No. 23-cv-3181 (UNA) (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2023). Compl. Ex. 4, ECF No. 1 at 11 (Order). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “deprived” him of his “civil rights as an appellant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 242” when they ignored “overwhelming document evidence.” Compl. at 1. Yet, he implausibly claims that this “civil suit is not connected to any ruling” nor “a substitute for an appeal” but rather “is for monetary damages.” Id.

Judges have absolute immunity from lawsuits based, as here, on their decisions rendered during proceedings within their jurisdiction. Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Further, a complaint against judges

2

who have “done nothing more than their duty” is “a meritless action,” Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995), or “patently frivolous,” Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 179 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 455 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Because no “allegation of other facts” could possibly cure the defects of the instant complaint, the Court will dismiss the case with prejudice. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring immediate dismissal of an action that is frivolous or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________/s/___________

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

Date: April 14, 2026 United States District Judge