Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-19-05132/USCOURTS-caDC-19-05132-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-5132 September Term, 2019

1:19-cv-00169-UNA

Filed On: January 14, 2020

John P. Fletcher,

Appellant

v.

Scott Harris, Clerk of the United States

Supreme Court,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the notice filed

by appellant on October 28, 2019, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed February 7,

2019, April 17, 2019, and April 30, 2019, be affirmed. The district court correctly denied

appellant’s motion for injunction and dismissed the case with prejudice, because

appellant’s claim for money damages against the Clerk of the Supreme Court was

barred by absolute immunity. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir.

1993) (per curiam) (“[C]lerks, like judges, are immune from damage suits for

performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”). Although

appellant asserts that Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993), and

Atherton v. D.C. Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 2009), are controlling

here, those cases held that absolute judicial immunity does not extend to court

reporters and juror officers, respectively, and therefore do not apply to this case.

Moreover, “immunity applies to all acts of auxiliary court personnel that are basic and

integral parts of the judicial function, unless those acts are done in the clear absence of

all jurisdiction.” Sindram, 986 F.2d at 1461 (citations, internal quotation marks, and

alteration omitted). Finally, appellant has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion for extension of time, his motions to amend or alter the

USCA Case #19-5132 Document #1824030 Filed: 01/14/2020 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-5132 September Term, 2019

judgment and for relief from judgment, and his request to amend the complaint. See,

e.g., Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Hettinga

v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2

USCA Case #19-5132 Document #1824030 Filed: 01/14/2020 Page 2 of 2