BELL v. DUVAL, No. 1:2009cv01867 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 9/24/2009. (mm, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED SEP 3 0 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LLOYD BELL, NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK U.S. OISTI'IICT COURT ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STANWOOD DUVAL, JR. and SARAH VANCE, ) ) Defendants. ) · ctlon 'u CIVl'1 A' No. ~ 1~ti7 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. l The application will be granted, but the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiffs causes of action arise from proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana before The Hon. Stanwood Duval, Jr., and The Hon. Sarah S. Vance, both United States District Judges. Plaintiff alleges a criminal conspiracy, but in fact, he challenges Judge Duval's rulings with respect to plaintiffs competency to stand trial and the dismissal of a civil action against an Agent of the United States Secret Service. In addition, he challenges Judge Vance's decision to dismiss certain defendants as parties to another civil action. It is settled law that judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts committed within their 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). Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against defendants who are immune from such relief, and the Court ~erefore will dismiss this action with prejudice. See 28 U.S.c. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court consolidates two separate complaints against Judge Duval and one complaint against Judge Vance. 1915A(b)(2). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately. ULtu JJj0~ United States District Judge
]]>
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.
