Lewis v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-4533
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TANGEE LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 25 - 4533 (UNA) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Tangee Lewis’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis, ECF No. 2, pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and motions for leave to use a Post Office box,

ECF No. 3, for emergency relief, ECF Nos. 4, 6, and for a CM/ECF password, ECF No. 5. For

the reasons explained below, the court will grant Ms. Lewis’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and motion to use a Post Office box, dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and deny the

remaining motions as moot.

Ms. Lewis names as defendants the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, and several staff

in the district court’s Clerk’s Office. ECF No. 1, at 1. Her claims arise from the dismissal of her

prior suit, see Lewis v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 25-CV-3588 (D.D.C. Nov. 5, 2025), ECF

Nos. 11, 12, and her subsequent encounters with the staff in the Clerk’s Office, see ECF No. 1, at 6-7.1 Generally, Ms. Lewis alleges that Clerk’s Office staff refused to answer her questions

about why her suit was dismissed, entered erroneous docket entries, and otherwise failed to assist

her. See ECF No. 1, at 6-7. She alleges that the employees’ actions interfered with her suit, which

sought investigations into the crimes and abuse committed against her and her children. See id.

at 8-10. Ms. Lewis requests that the court “intervene [to] help” her children, allow her original

suit to proceed, and award her $12 trillion in damages. Id. at 10.

As an initial matter, courts and judges are absolutely immune from suits arising from their

official actions. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,

355-57 (1978). The court will accordingly dismiss both courts and Judge Nichols from the case.

Absolute judicial immunity also extends to court staff in the performance of “tasks that are

an integral part of the judicial process.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993);

see Jones v. U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 10-CV-910, 2010 WL 2363678, at *1 (D.D.C. June 9, 2010)

(concluding that court staff are immune from suits for damages arising from activities such as the

“receipt and processing of a litigant’s filings”), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. Sup. Ct. of U.S., 405 F.

App’x 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1824 (2011); Thomas v. Wilkins, 61 F.

Supp. 3d 13, 19 (D.D.C. 2014) (dismissing claims against a court employee based on her handling

of court submissions), aff’d, No. 14-5197, 2015 WL 1606933 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 23, 2015). Court

staff are immune even if they err in performing those tasks. Sindram, 986 F.2d at 1461 (holding

that the issuance of an erroneous order barring a litigant from access to the court was an “integral

part[] of the judicial process”). The actions of Clerk’s Office staff that Ms. Lewis challenges are

1 When citing Ms. Lewis’s complaint, ECF No. 1, the court refers to the CM/ECF-generated numbers at the top of each page rather than any internal pagination.

2 “part and parcel of the process of adjudicating cases.” Jones, 2010 WL 2363678, at *1. The court

will therefore dismiss the Clerk’s Office defendants as well.2

Accordingly, the court will grant Ms. Lewis’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

ECF No. 2, and her motion to use a Post Office box, ECF No. 3, dismiss the complaint with

prejudice, ECF No. 1, and deny the remaining motions as moot, ECF Nos. 4, 5. A

contemporaneous order will issue.

LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge Date: February 3, 2026

2 Dismissals on the basis of absolute immunity are with prejudice. See Fournerat v. Higgins, No. 24-CV-2520, 2024 WL 4528973, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 2024).