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.

Glover v. Urbina

United States District Court, District of Columbia

January 15, 2014

Fred M. Glover, Plaintiff,
v.
Ricardo M. Urbina et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A, which requires the Court to screen and dismiss a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary damages from an immune defendant.

The plaintiff is a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. He sues a retired judge of this Court, Ricardo M. Urbina, and a senior judge of this Court, Royce C. Lamberth, for $50 million in damages "for my false imprisonment." Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights at 5. In the "Parties" section of the complaint, the plaintiff also names two individuals described as "DC Lawyer" and "USDA." Id. at 4.

The plaintiff alleges only that then-Judge Urbina "conspired with a prisoner to get Fred M. Glover arrested as in the court records [of this Court]." Id. The plaintiff makes no allegations against Judge Lamberth or the other two individuals and, therefore, has failed to state a claim against these defendants. The fact that the plaintiff points to court documents as his basis for suing Judge Urbina indicates that this claim arises out of acts Judge Urbina took as the sentencing judge who also presided over the plaintiff's criminal trial and post-conviction proceedings. See United States v. Glover, No. 96-cr-00011 (Jan. 19, 1996 Case Assignment); Glover v. United States of America, No. 04-cv-00390 (RMU). Judges, however, are absolutely immune from lawsuits arising from acts taken in their judicial capacity. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Thanh Vong Hoai v. Superior Court for District of Columbia, 344 Fed.Appx. 620 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Hence, this case will be dismissed.[1]


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.