Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05347/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05347-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Verla Wiley
Appellant
Robert Leon Wilkins
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5347 September Term, 2015

1:15-cv-01503-CKK

Filed On: May 24, 2016

Verla Wiley,

Appellant

v.

Robert Leon Wilkins, In his Official and

Individual capacity as a U.S. District Court

Judge,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Tatel and Pillard, Circuit Judges; Ginsburg, 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 and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed.

R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed September 29,

2015, and December 2, 2015, be affirmed. The district court properly concluded that it

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because it cannot review decisions made by another

District Judge, and because appellant’s claims were patently frivolous. See Hagans v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to

hear claims that are “constitutionally insubstantial,” such as claims that are “essentially

fictitious, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, [or] obviously without merit”) (internal

quotations and citations omitted); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356

(1978) (judges acting in their judicial capacity are immune from suit, even when such

acts are alleged to be in excess of authority, malicious or corrupt); Roth v. King, 449

F.3d 1272, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). 

USCA Case #15-5347 Document #1614670 Filed: 05/24/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5347 September Term, 2015

See Summers v. Howard Univ., 374 F.3d 118,1192 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Ken Meadows 

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #15-5347 Document #1614670 Filed: 05/24/2016 Page 2 of 2