DAVIS v. SUTER et al, No. 1:2009cv01990 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/5/09. (ls, )

Download PDF
FILED OCT? 1 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEANDER G. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM K. SUTER, et aI., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 09 1990 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court for consideration of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff describes himself as a "Political Prisoner" who "is presently being Illegally detained and Unlawfully Restrained" in a Pennsylvania correctional institution "for Crimes and Offenses HE DID NOT COMMIT[.]" Compl. at 5 (emphasis and capital letters in original). He brings this civil rights action against the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States and two prosecutors in their individual capacities under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff appears to allege that the prosecutors improperly influenced the Clerk of the Supreme Court through their filings in the lower courts in such a way that the Clerk rejected plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari. Generally, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from a damages lawsuit predicated on 1 their "initiating a prosecution and [] presenting the [government's] case." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,430-431 (1976); see Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189,193-94 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("Advocatory conduct protected by absolute immunity 'include[s] the professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police and appropriate preparation for its presentation at trial or before a grand jury after a decision to seek an indictment has been made. ''') (quoting Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 820 (1996). The Clerk of the Supreme Court is the designated recipient of all documents filed with the Supreme Court, and is authorized to reject any filing that does not comply with the applicable rules and orders. See Sup. ct. R. 1. This Court has no authority to determine what action, if any, must be taken by the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's administrative officers. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339,340 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 844 (1992). In any event, judges and other court officials have absolute immunity for their actions taken in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). The Court will dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because the complaint seeks monetary relief from defendants who are ~n.or~ immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b~./ ·f consi ent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on i me date. I I,A Unite! States District Judge 2

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.