McCoo v. Civil Court Clerks Office of the US District Court

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 25, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-0782
• Status: Published

Opinion

.------

FILED APR 2 5 '011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the District of Columbia

Samuel N. McCoo, Jr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) 11 07~2 v. ) Civil Action No. ) Civil Court Clerks Office of the ) U.S. District Court et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint

pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e), which requires the district court to dismiss a complaint upon a

determination that, among other grounds, it is frivolous or seeks monetary relief against an

immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(iii).

The plaintiff claims that he has been "injured by the neglectful activity of the [defendants]

in thier [sic] legally bound and obligated duties." Civil Complaint at 1. Most of the plaintiff s

accusations are unclear but he alleges that the "civil clerks neither took time to see, nor read, nor

apply the civil rules or civil process practice, to the civil matter I presented." Id. at 7. He also

accuses the defendants of being rude to him. Id. The plaintiff seeks damages exceeding $60

million. Id. at 9.

In this Circuit, absolute judicial immunity extends to clerks of the court. Sindram v.

Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Therefore, "clerks, like judges, are

immune from damage suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process," id., which appears to form the basis of this lawsuit. Cf id. at 1461 ("in so far as the

complaint states them intelligibly-their '[a]ssistance in preparing and dissemination of the

opinion of one of the defendant judges; their directing plaintiffs causes of action to the defendant

judges; and their 'institut[ing] an erroneous order against Plaintiff barring his access to the

court' -are indisputably 'integral parts of the judicial process' and are within their jurisdiction.")

(alterations in original). Moreover, the complaint presents the type of "fanciful factual

allegation[s]" that are subject to dismissal as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989). It therefore will be dismissed.}

Date: April~, 2011

} A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.