Miller v. Harris

District of Columbia

Miller v. Harris

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedAugust 5, 2014

DocketCivil Action No. 2014-1330

StatusPublished

This text of Miller v. Harris (Miller v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Harris, (D.D.C. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUG - 5 201‘! Clark, U.S. Dlstrlct and

) Plaintiff, ) )

V- ) Civil Action No. /¢' ) Scott S. Harris et (11., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff” s pro se complaint and application to proceed informa pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action “at any time” the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff, an Ohio state prisoner incarcerated in Marion, Ohio, sues the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court and other employees of that ofﬁce for returning his petition for writ of habeas corpus because of several deﬁciencies listed in a letter to plaintiff from the Supreme Court Clerk. See Comp]. at 2-3 & Comp]. Attach. (Apr. 10, 2014 letter). The attachments to the complaint show that plaintiff” s petition was subsequently ﬁled and was denied by the Supreme CouIt on June 9, 2014. Regardless, plaintiff seeks $3 million in damages. Compl. at 10.

This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, including those of its Clerk of Court. In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (DC. Cir. 1992); see

Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) ("It

seems axiomatic that a lower court may not Order the judges or ofﬁcers of a higher court to take an action"). In addition, the Supreme Court Clerk and his staff enjoy absolute immunity from a lawsuit for money damages based on those actions, as alleged here, that fall within the scope of their ofﬁcial duties. Sindram v. Sada, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (DC. Cir. 1993). Therefore, this

case will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

D . . 1/ ate: u ust , nite tates ist Ct 11 ge D Ag Uh 2014 U'dS D' Jd } g

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUG - 5 201‘! Clark, U.S. Dlstrlct and

) Plaintiff, ) )

V- ) Civil Action No. /¢' ) Scott S. Harris et (11., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff” s pro se complaint and application to proceed informa pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action “at any time” the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff, an Ohio state prisoner incarcerated in Marion, Ohio, sues the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court and other employees of that ofﬁce for returning his petition for writ of habeas corpus because of several deﬁciencies listed in a letter to plaintiff from the Supreme Court Clerk. See Comp]. at 2-3 & Comp]. Attach. (Apr. 10, 2014 letter). The attachments to the complaint show that plaintiff” s petition was subsequently ﬁled and was denied by the Supreme CouIt on June 9, 2014. Regardless, plaintiff seeks $3 million in damages. Compl. at 10.

This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, including those of its Clerk of Court. In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (DC. Cir. 1992); see

Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) ("It

seems axiomatic that a lower court may not Order the judges or ofﬁcers of a higher court to take an action"). In addition, the Supreme Court Clerk and his staff enjoy absolute immunity from a lawsuit for money damages based on those actions, as alleged here, that fall within the scope of their ofﬁcial duties. Sindram v. Sada, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (DC. Cir. 1993). Therefore, this

case will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

D . . 1/ ate: u ust , nite tates ist Ct 11 ge D Ag Uh 2014 U'dS D' Jd } g

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miller v. Harris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-harris-dcd-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack