GORBEY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al, No. 1:2009cv00261 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/27/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
f\LEO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEB 11 2009 1(iR W\'\I111N(l10N, ClERK -y~S. OISlP.~l COURl MICHAEL S. GORBEY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action N'09 0261 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. The Hon. Gregory Jackson, Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, presided over plaintiffs criminal case. According to plaintiff, Judge Jackson had "no authority[] or jurisdiction over any charge being prosecuted by the federal government," such that his actions were "illegal and outside his judicial capasity [sic]." CompI. at 3. In addition, Judge Jackson allegedly made erroneous rulings, refused to recuse himself, prevented plaintiff from availing himself of the assistance of counsel, and imposed a lengthy prison sentence. See id. at 47. For these alleged violations of rights protected under the United States Constitution, plaintiff demands damages totalling $22 billion. !d. at 7. Judge Jackson enjoys absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts committed within his judicial jurisdiction. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988); Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,20 L.Ed. 646 (1872). The prosecution of plaintiffs criminal case falls within his jurisdiction, as the Superior Court has jurisdiction over criminal cases under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code § 11-923. In the District of Columbia, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia 3 conducts criminal prosecutions in the name of the United States for any violation of criminal laws where the maximum term of imprisonment exceeds one year. See D.C. Code § 23-101. The fact that a federal prosecutor brought charges against plaintiff does not deprive the Superior Court of jurisdiction. To the extent that plaintiffs claim goes to the fact of his confinement, he cannot recover damages in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.c. § 1983 without showing that his confinement has been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, declar[ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus." Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); accord White v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). Plaintiff has not satisfied this prerequisite and therefore fails to state a claim under Section 1983. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
