Hill v. Krauthamer

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 18, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-1010
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ERIC RODNEY HILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-01010 (UNA) ) ) PETER A. KRAUTHAMER, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint against D.C. Superior Court Judge Peter

Krauthamer and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application

and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate dismissal of a

prisoner’s case against a governmental officer upon a determination that the complaint is frivolous

or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted).

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the D.C. Jail. He alleges that on June 7, 2022, Judge Krauthamer

allowed “a witness to lie in court on the witness stand.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5. As a result, he

was denied a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution and “falsely convicted.” Id. Plaintiff seeks “one

hundred thousand dollars in actual, punitive damages.” Id. at 6.

An “in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous . . . if it is clear from

the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims

asserted.” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). It is established that judges

enjoy absolute immunity from suits for damages based, as here, on their decisions in a judicial

proceeding within their jurisdiction. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also

Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 179 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding “claims against the district

and court of appeals judges . . . patently frivolous because . . . judges are absolutely immune from

lawsuits predicated, as here, for their official acts”); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170,

172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (a complaint against judges who have “done

nothing more than their duty” is “a meritless action.”). Because no “allegation of other facts”

could plausibly cure this defect, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 1 Firestone v. Firestone,

76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam). A separate order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

_________/s/_____________ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER Date: May 18, 2023 United States District Judge

1 Plaintiff’s recourse for an unconstitutional conviction in Superior Court lies, if at all, in an appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals.