Jones v. Supreme Court of the United States

D.C. Circuit

Jones v. Supreme Court of the United States

405 F. App'x 508

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 30, 2010

DocketNo. 10-5222

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 405 F. App'x 508 (Jones v. Supreme Court of the United States) 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

Jones v. Supreme Court of the United States, 405 F. App'x 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued June 9, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court, see In re: Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam); federal appellate courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1254; Sanders v. United States, 184 Fed.Appx. 13, 14 (D.C.Cir.2006) (per curiam); or other district courts, see Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995); Prentice v. U.S. District Court, 307 Fed.Appx. 460 (D.C.Cir.2008) (per curiam). To the extent appellant seeks to recover damages from individual judges or court officers, his claims are barred by absolute immunity. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C.Cir.1993). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the requests for injunctive relief and transfer to a different district court judge be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued June 9, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court, see In re: Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam); federal appellate courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1254; Sanders v. United States, 184 Fed.Appx. 13, 14 (D.C.Cir.2006) (per curiam); or other district courts, see Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995); Prentice v. U.S. District Court, 307 Fed.Appx. 460 (D.C.Cir.2008) (per curiam). To the extent appellant seeks to recover damages from individual judges or court officers, his claims are barred by absolute immunity. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C.Cir.1993). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the requests for injunctive relief and transfer to a different district court judge be dismissed as moot.

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)

405 F. App'x 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-cadc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack