Kaden v. Battey

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 27, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-2064
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED sTArEs DISTRICT couRr ,.,.j,~ 2 7 gm FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA ‘r ' C|erk, u.i». c`~;strict and

Anthany Kaden, ) Sdf\k\'\-\Ptcy C°urts ) Plaintiff, ) ) v_ ) Civil Action No. , /7_., Zob§¢ Richard H. Battey et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a South Dakota state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis Plaintiff sues United States District judge Richard H. Battey of the District of South Dakota, and the Clerk of that Court, joseph A. Haas, for alleged rulings made during plaintiffs civil lawsuit, which allegedly was dismissed on january l7, 2012. See Compl. at l-2. Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, the removal of both judicial officers and monetary damages exceeding $2 million. Id. at 3-4. The Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

jurisdiction is wanting for three reasons. First, a federal district court is not a reviewing court and. thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts. See 28 U.S.C. §§ l33l, 1332 (generaljurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. Unilea’ States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), ceri. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Second,judges and clerks of court

are absolutely immune from lawsuits based on acts, as alleged here, taken in their official

capacity. Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d l459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. l993). Third, the instant complaint is "patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.' " Cala’well v.

Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d l77, 178 (D.D.C. 201 l) (quoting Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006,

l009 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

¢»~ ')Ul»~@

Date: December ,2012 United Stat~es~f)istrict judge