Kenneth Smith v. Elena Kagan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1347
KENNETH L. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HON. ELENA KAGAN, in their official capacities as Justices
of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON. CLARENCE
THOMAS, in their official capacities as Justices of THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON. ANTONIN G. SCALIA,
in their official capacities as Justices of THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., in
their official capacities as Justices of THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES; HON. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, in their
official capacities as Justices of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES; HON. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, in their official
capacities as Justices of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES; HON. STEPHEN G. BREYER, in their official capacities
as Justices of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON.
SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., in their official capacities as
Justices of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR, in their official capacities as Justices of
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01242-CMH-TCB)
Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth L. Smith appeals the district court’s order sua
sponte dismissing his civil action against the Justices of the
United States Supreme Court. Frivolous complaints are subject
to dismissal pursuant to the court’s inherent authority, even
when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee. See, e.g., Mallard
v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989); Fitzgerald v.
First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir.
2000) (per curiam). Additionally, dismissal prior to service of
process is permissible when a court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over a patently frivolous complaint. See Surtain
v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2015)
(per curiam); Ricketts v. Midwest Nat’l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177,
1181-83 (7th Cir. 1989); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337,
1342-43 (9th Cir. 1981).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding Smith’s complaint
frivolous and in dismissing the action on that basis. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327-28 (1989) (defining
frivolous claims); Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 254-55 (4th
Cir. 2004) (standard of review). We also find no abuse of
discretion in the court’s denial of Smith’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion. See Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 220 (4th
Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for
3
Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012)
(identifying permissible bases for Rule 59(e) relief).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4