Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Howard v. United States Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


March 30, 2009

GREGORY T. HOWARD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Colleen Kollar-kotelly United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's pro se Complaint filed on March 18, 2009. The Court shall dismiss the complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) ("[n]otwithstanding any filing fee . . . that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief") and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) ("[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action").

Plaintiff has sued the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Attorney General, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the United States Department of the Treasury, for $27,519,203.43.*fn1 Plaintiff indicates that he intends to seek leave to add the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court as additional Defendants. See Compl. ¶ 20. Notwithstanding the identities of the named or putative Defendants, it is apparent that Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages in connection with various rulings made by Judge Algenon L. Marbley in a case involving Plaintiff in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Ohio. Judges are absolutely immune from lawsuits predicated on acts taken, as alleged here, in their judicial capacities. 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). Although Plaintiff mistakenly asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides this court with "jurisdiction over other district court's orders," Compl. ¶ 31, this is not an appellate Court and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the judgments of other federal courts.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint shall be dismissed, and the summons issued shall be quashed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.