Horst v. Higgins

District of Columbia

Horst v. Higgins

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedAugust 27, 2019

DocketCivil Action No. 2019-2383

StatusPublished

This text of Horst v. Higgins (Horst v. Higgins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horst v. Higgins, (D.D.C. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUG 27 2019

Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

CHARLOTTE HORST, et ai., Plaintiffs, Vv. Civil Action No. 19-2383 (UNA) CLAYTON R. HIGGINS, JR., et al., Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

It appears that a Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States returned to plaintiff Charlotte Horst a petition she had addressed directly to Justice Neil Gorsuch with instructions to file a corrected petition. Horst alleges that defendants lack the authority to reject a submission. In doing so, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk impersonate Supreme Court Justices and, in effect, render judgment in violation of rights protected under federal statutes and various provisions of the United States Constitution. Among other relief, Horst demands an order enjoining the Clerk and Deputy Clerks from returning her submissions.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is the designated recipient of all documents filed with the Supreme Court, and he is authorized to reject any filing that does not comply with applicable rules and orders. See Sup. Ct. R. 1. This Court has no authority to determine what action, if any, must be taken by the Supreme Court and its administrative officers. See Miller v. Harris, 599 F. App’x 1, | (per curiam) (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“The district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court, including those of its Clerk

of Court.”); In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam) (“We are aware of no authority for the proposition that a lower court may compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 844 (1992); Gillenwater v. Harris, No. 16-CV-495, 2016 WL 8285811, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 12, 2016), aff'd, No. 16-5107, 2016 WL 6915556 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 5, 2016) (per curiam), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1345 (2017).

The Court will grant the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will

dismiss the complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: August a4 , 2019 / oA, b1——

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUG 27 2019

Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

CHARLOTTE HORST, et ai., Plaintiffs, Vv. Civil Action No. 19-2383 (UNA) CLAYTON R. HIGGINS, JR., et al., Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

It appears that a Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States returned to plaintiff Charlotte Horst a petition she had addressed directly to Justice Neil Gorsuch with instructions to file a corrected petition. Horst alleges that defendants lack the authority to reject a submission. In doing so, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk impersonate Supreme Court Justices and, in effect, render judgment in violation of rights protected under federal statutes and various provisions of the United States Constitution. Among other relief, Horst demands an order enjoining the Clerk and Deputy Clerks from returning her submissions.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is the designated recipient of all documents filed with the Supreme Court, and he is authorized to reject any filing that does not comply with applicable rules and orders. See Sup. Ct. R. 1. This Court has no authority to determine what action, if any, must be taken by the Supreme Court and its administrative officers. See Miller v. Harris, 599 F. App’x 1, | (per curiam) (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“The district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court, including those of its Clerk

of Court.”); In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam) (“We are aware of no authority for the proposition that a lower court may compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 844 (1992); Gillenwater v. Harris, No. 16-CV-495, 2016 WL 8285811, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 12, 2016), aff'd, No. 16-5107, 2016 WL 6915556 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 5, 2016) (per curiam), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1345 (2017).

The Court will grant the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will

dismiss the complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: August a4 , 2019 / oA, b1——

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Horst v. Higgins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horst-v-higgins-dcd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack