Jozwiak v. Bury

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 14, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0883
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PAUL E. JOZWIAK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-00883 (UNA) ) ) DAVID C. BURY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a prolix complaint and an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint is frivolous

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

Plaintiff, a Wisconsin resident who previously resided in Arizona, has sued U.S. District

Judge David C. Bury. The complaint, to the extent intelligible, arises from Defendant’s rulings in

Plaintiff’s case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. See Compl., ECF No. 1

at 10 (“Bury Is Charged With Illegally Presiding Over And Dismissing The Plaintiff’s ERISA

Case Due To His Violations Of State and/or Federal Codes Of Judicial Conduct, Civil And

Constitutional Rights, COVID Orders, ERISA-Law With That Of Written Law!”). Plaintiff seeks

monetary damages and injunctive relief. See id. at 47-49.

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

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

proceeding. See 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 federal judges are

absolutely immune from lawsuits predicated, as here, for their official acts”) (citing 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)); see also 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.”). Moreover, a federal district court such as

this “cannot review decisions of another district court,” Lu v. Eid, No. 21-5175, 2021 WL 6102201,

at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 29, 2021), and compel it to act. See United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d

79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (federal district courts “generally lack[ ] appellate jurisdiction over other

judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts”).

Because no “allegation of other facts” could plausibly cure the foregoing defects, the

complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

(per curiam). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________/s/___________ TANYA S. CHUTKAN Date: April 14, 2023 United States District Judge