United States District Court, District of Columbia
N. MCFADDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2017, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied Michael Charles Pilot's
habeas petition because the named respondents did not have
custody over Mr. Pilot, and then she transferred the case to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, where Mr. Pilot's original habeas petition was
still pending. See Memorandum Opinion and Transfer
Order, ECF No. 4, Pilot v. Goldsmith, No.
17-cv-00929 (D.D.C. May 23, 2017).
two months later, Mr. Pilot started a new action in this
District against Judge Kollar-Kotelly, in her personal and
individual capacity; United States Attorney General Jefferson
B. Sessions, III, in his official capacity; and the Acting
United States Attorney Channing D. Phillips, in his official
capacity. See Pilot v. Kollar-Kotelly
(“Pilot I”), No. 17-cv-01337, 2017 WL
3084380, at *1 (D.D.C. July 18, 2017), aff'd,
712 Fed.Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018). While far from clear, that
Complaint seemed to seek a declaratory judgment vacating the
transfer order and money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Id. Judge Cooper dismissed Mr. Pilot's Complaint
with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Id. at *1-2. When Mr. Pilot appealed, the D.C.
Circuit affirmed, explaining that Mr. Pilot “has failed
to demonstrate any error in the district court's
dismissal of his complaint on the grounds that it was
frivolous, failed to state a claim, and sought damages
against an immune defendant.” Pilot v.
Kollar-Kotelly (“Pilot II”), 712
Fed.Appx. 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
days later, Mr. Pilot filed the present action in this Court.
See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. In his
Complaint, he is suing President Donald J. Trump for a
violation of the First and Fifth Amendments because the
Deputy Clerk of the D.C. Circuit- rather than D.C. Circuit
judges themselves-signed the order dismissing his earlier
appeal. Id. at 37. And for that same reason, he is
bringing a claim, again against the President, under the
Hostage Act and Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at
Court may dismiss a case “at any time” if it
determines that the complaint is (1) frivolous; (2) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks
monetary relief against an immune defendant. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Pilot II, 712
Fed.Appx. at 1.
put, Mr. Pilot has failed to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. Mr. Pilot has sued the head of the executive
branch for the alleged misdeeds of an entirely separate
branch of government: the federal judiciary. The President
does not have the authority to govern the administration of
the courts. A judgment against the President will not provide
relief for Mr. Pilot for this alleged wrong. Mr. Pilot's
suit is like blaming a passerby for an alleged tort committed
by someone else: it makes no sense.
Cooper explained earlier that Mr. Pilot's “proven
pattern” is to sue judges who issue orders against him
as “a backdoor attempt to relitigate his already
decided claims.” Pilot I, 2017 WL 3084380, at
*1. While he is now trying to sue the President-not a
disfavored judge- clearly, his purpose remains the same. He
wishes to re-litigate old matters and circumvent the ordinary
appellate process. But the allegations in Mr.
Pilot'spro se Complaint, liberally construed as
they must be, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106 (1976), fail to state a claim on which relief may be
have a constitutional right of access to the courts, but that
right is not absolute. See Butler v. Dep't of
Justice, 492 F.3d 440, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2007). "When
a court determines that a litigant is an abusive filer, it
'may impose conditions upon [the] litigant-even onerous
conditions ... so long as they are, taken together, not so
burdensome as to deny the litigant meaningful access to the
courts.'" Id. (quoting In re
Green, 669 F.2d 779, 785 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). Mr. Pilot is
warned that if Mr. Pilot abuses his right of access to the
courts by making frivolous filings, the Court may consider
the imposition of conditions, up to and including debarment.
these reasons, the Court will dismiss this case with
prejudice. A separate order will issue.
 To the extent that Mr. Pilot means to
sue the judges mentioned in his Complaint, “[j]udges
enjoy absolute immunity from suits for money damages for all
actions taken in the judge's judicial capacity, unless
these acts are taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459,
1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). This immunity “is immunity from
suit, not just from the assessment of ...