Nixon v. Barnes

District of Columbia

Nixon v. Barnes

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedAugust 30, 2019

DocketCivil Action No. 2019-2266

StatusPublished

This text of Nixon v. Barnes (Nixon v. Barnes) 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

Nixon v. Barnes, (D.D.C. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 30 2019

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbi

Tracy Nixon, ) Plaintiff, , V. Civil Action No. 19-2266 (UNA) Redmond K. Barnes, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

. This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of the complaint and plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant). | Plaintiff, a resident of Dallas, Texas, has sued an employee of the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court for returning his petition for writ of certiorari due to plaintiffs non- compliance with certain Rules of the Court. See Compl. Attachments. Plaintiff seeks “punitive damages” and equitable relief. Compl. at 5.

The Supreme Court “has inherent [and exclusive] supervisory authority over its Clerk.” In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Therefore, “a lower court may [not] compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action.” Jd.; 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 Clerk’s office staff enjoy absolute immunity from a 1 lawsuit for money damages based upon decisions falling within the scope of their official duties,” as is alleged in this case. Miller v. Harris, 599 Fed. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam)). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

lo

Date: August SO , 2019 United States District Judge

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

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 30 2019

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbi

Tracy Nixon, ) Plaintiff, , V. Civil Action No. 19-2266 (UNA) Redmond K. Barnes, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

. This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of the complaint and plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant). | Plaintiff, a resident of Dallas, Texas, has sued an employee of the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court for returning his petition for writ of certiorari due to plaintiffs non- compliance with certain Rules of the Court. See Compl. Attachments. Plaintiff seeks “punitive damages” and equitable relief. Compl. at 5.

The Supreme Court “has inherent [and exclusive] supervisory authority over its Clerk.” In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Therefore, “a lower court may [not] compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action.” Jd.; 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 Clerk’s office staff enjoy absolute immunity from a 1 lawsuit for money damages based upon decisions falling within the scope of their official duties,” as is alleged in this case. Miller v. Harris, 599 Fed. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam)). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

lo

Date: August SO , 2019 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nixon v. Barnes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-barnes-dcd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack