Williams v. Levitan ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MERLIN LKENT WILLIAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-00351 (UNA)
)
JACOB LEVITAN, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se by a Mississippi state prisoner, is before the Court on initial
review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF. No. 1, transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, ECF No. 9 (Order). A district court must immediately dismiss a
prisoner’s complaint against a governmental defendant upon determining that it, among other
grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief from an
immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Both grounds apply in this case.
Plaintiff has sued an employee of the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk’s Office for allegedly
denying him access to the Court on November 17, 2022, and December 9, 2022. Compl. at 2, 5.
Claiming violations of the First Amendment, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and an “award” of
“$100,000,000.00.” Id. at 4. But the Supreme Court “has inherent [and exclusive] supervisory
authority over its Clerk,” In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam), and “a
lower court may [not] compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action,” id.; see Panko
v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) (“It seems
axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an
action.”). In addition, “the Supreme Court Clerk and Clerk’s office staff enjoy absolute immunity
1
from a lawsuit for money damages based upon decisions falling within the scope of their official
duties.” Miller v. Harris, 599 Fed. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Sindram v. Suda,
986 F.2d 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam)); see Reddy v. O’Connor, 520 F. Supp. 2d 124, 130
(D.D.C. 2007) (actions consisting of the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari and the Deputy
Clerk’s refusal to file documents concerning a subsequent petition “are quintessentially ‘judicial’
in nature because they are ‘an integral part of the judicial process’”) (quoting Sindram, 986 F.2d
at 1460-61)).
Plaintiff’s vague allegations suggest nothing more than Defendant performing his official
duties. Therefore, this case will be dismissed with prejudice by separate order. See Fletcher v.
Harris, 790 Fed. App’x 220 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of claim against
the Clerk of the Supreme Court); see also Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir.
1996) (per curiam) (“A dismissal with prejudice is warranted . . . when a trial court ‘determines
that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure
the deficiency.’”) (quoting Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir.
1985) (emphasis omitted)).
_________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: February 24, 2023 United States District Judge
2