Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01347/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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.

Appeal: 15-1347 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1347 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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 

Appeal: 15-1347 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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

Appeal: 15-1347 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/21/2015 Pg: 4 of 4