Mills v. District of Columbia ( 2020 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY 21 2020
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
ANTHONY JEROME MILLS,
Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01252 (UNA)
JOHN F. MCCABE JR., Judge, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis
application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate dismissal of
a prisoner’s action upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted or is frivolous).
Plaintiff is a Maryland state prisoner incarcerated at the Jessup Correctional Institution in
Jessup, Maryland. He has sued Associate Judge John F. McCabe of the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia and other individuals who participated in family court proceedings
concerning the custody and visitation of Plaintiff’s minor child. See generally Compl. for
Violation of Civil Rights and Prayer for Jury Trial, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
“conspired and acted in perfect concert with” Judge McCabe to deny him due process and equal
protection. Id. at 1. Plaintiff has included a transcript of the testimony of the child’s mother
who, along with her three attorneys, is also a named Defendant. Claiming discrimination, fraud,
and defamation, see id., Plaintiff demands at least $15 million in damages, see id. at 17.
1
An “in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous . . . if it is clear from
the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims
asserted.” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Additionally, a complaint
that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Judges enjoy absolute immunity from suits, such as this,
based on acts taken in their judicial capacity, so long as they have jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Moore v. Burger, 655 F.2d 1265, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (citing cases).
Such “immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.”
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Therefore, a complaint against judges who have “done
nothing more than their duty” is “a meritless action.” Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp.
170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).
Furthermore, to protect the integrity of the judicial process, “[t]he immunity of parties
and witnesses from subsequent damages liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings [is]
well established,” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 330–31 (1983), as is the immunity of the
parties’ advocates, Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512 (1978). Therefore, this case will be
dismissed because the Complaint both fails to state a claim for relief and is frivolous. Because
“the allegation of other facts consistent with the . . . pleading could not possibly cure the
deficienc[ies],” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted), the dismissal will be with prejudice. A separate order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: May 20, 2020
CARL J. NICHOLS
United States District Judge
2