Rich v. Simmons

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1311
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FRANKIE RICH, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-01311 (UNA) ) ) SARA SIMMONS et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, submitted a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the

complaint.

Plaintiff sues two employees of the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court in their

official and individual capacities for rejecting his submissions under Sup. Ct. Rule 9.1. See

Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2-3, 9. Plaintiff seeks money damages, a declaratory judgment, and an

injunction “requiring defendants to accept and process” his “petition for writ of certiorari as

personal representative of his deceased wife’s estate, allowing it to be considered by the Justices

of the Supreme Court on its merits.” Id. at 7.

Because the Supreme Court “has inherent supervisory authority over its Clerk,” this Court

lacks jurisdiction to compel the Clerk and the Clerk’s staff to take any action. In re Marin, 956

F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam), quoting Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168 (7th Cir. 1979)

(“[I]t seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to

take an action.”). Further, “clerks, like judges, are immune from damage suits for performance of tasks,” as alleged here, “that are an integral part of the judicial process.” Sindram v. Suda, 986

F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). And a court “shall” dismiss a case that “seeks monetary relief

against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). Therefore,

this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/______________ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER Date: May 27, 2026 United States District Judge