United States District Court, D. Columbia
October 3, 2005.
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PAUL FRIEDMAN, District Judge
This action, brought pro se by a federal prisoner, is before
the Court on its initial review of the complaint. The Court is
required to screen a prisoner's complaint and dismiss it as soon
as practicable if, among other grounds, the complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary
damages from officials who are immune from suit.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b). The Court will dismiss the complaint on both
Plaintiff has filed a "Motion for Relief from Judgment by
Independent Action Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 60(b); Rules
Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072; 28 U.S.C. § 1631;
28 U.S.C. § 455(a)." He seeks "relief from the judgment" of conviction
entered by the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. Complaint at 1. As plaintiff has been advised
previously, this claim must be pursued by petitioning the
sentencing court pursuant to § 2255. See Judd v. United States of
America, Civ. Action No. 05-1152 (D.D.C., June 9, 2005); Judd
v. United States of America, Civ. Action No. 05-1221 (D.D.C.,
June 22, 2005). This Court lacks authority to review plaintiff's
judgment of conviction.
Plaintiff also seeks $10 million in damages. Although he lists
four individuals as defendants, plaintiff complains only about
acts taken by United States District Judge Royal Ferguson. See
Complaint at 3-4. Judges are absolutely immune from suit for
actions, such as those alleged here, taken in a judicial or
quasi-judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225
(1988); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978);
Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). As for
the other named defendants, plaintiff has made no accusations
against them and therefore has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court, acting sua sponte,
dismisses the complaint in its entirety. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.