Thrasher v. Suter

District of Columbia

Thrasher v. Suter

473 F. App'x 5

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedAugust 1, 2012

DocketNo. 11-5227

StatusPublished

This text of 473 F. App'x 5 (Thrasher v. Suter) 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

Thrasher v. Suter, 473 F. App'x 5 (D.D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 27, 2011 be affirmed. Appellant’s forgery claim appears to be fanciful, and the district court correctly held that it lacks authority over Supreme Court justices and administrative officers, see, e.g., In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam), and that they enjoy absolute immunity for actions taken as part of the judicial function. See, e.g., Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C.Cir.1993) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 27, 2011 be affirmed. Appellant’s forgery claim appears to be fanciful, and the district court correctly held that it lacks authority over Supreme Court justices and administrative officers, see, e.g., In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam), and that they enjoy absolute immunity for actions taken as part of the judicial function. See, e.g., Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C.Cir.1993) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 F. App'x 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thrasher-v-suter-dcd-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack