William Arthur Moore v. Warren Burger

655 F.2d 1265, 211 U.S. App. D.C. 35, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13010

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 1981
• Docket: 80-2414
• Status: Published

Opinions

Opinion PER CURIAM.

Concurring Opinion filed by Circuit Judge HARRY T. EDWARDS.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant William Arthur Moore has filed a motion to expedite his appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his complaint against four justices of the Supreme Court and the “Federal Government.” His complaint alleges that such justices caused cases before the Supreme Court to be decided contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and thereby created judicial precedents that caused him to be denied his constitutional rights. Such wrongful action was alleged to have been taken in cases the court decided on the basis of the absolute and qualified immunity of state and federal officials of the executive and judicial branches of government. Since the named justices, in deciding such cases, had clear jurisdiction over the subject matter before them, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the District Court acted properly in dismissing the complaint. The federal appellees have absolute immunity in exercising their judicial authority in such cases; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-359, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1104-1106, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872); Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 535,19 L.Ed. 285 (1868); Clark v. Taylor, 627 F.2d 284, 286 (D.C.Cir.1980); and the same immunity extends to judicial officials of states unless they have acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Id. Contrary to appellant’s misconception the current Supreme Court did not create new law with respect to judicial immunity. Over a hundred years ago, Justice Field in Randall v. Brigham, supra, remarked that “judicial officers ... [are] not liable to a civil action for any judicial act done by them within their jurisdiction.” 7 Wall, at 535. The present complaint was therefore completely frivolous and was properly dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).¹

We therefore deny the motion to expedite the appeal and affirm sua sponte the dismissal of the complaint against the defendant justices.² We also affirm sua sponte the dismissal of the complaint against the “Federal Government” for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judgment accordingly.

1 . 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) provides:

(d) The court ... may dismiss the case ... if satisfied that the action is frivolous ...

2 . Since official immunity is a proper basis for affirming the District Court there is no necessity to consider other ramifications of the principle.