### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Nathaniel J. Richardson, Jr., ) ) 

### Plaintiff, ) ) 

### v. ) ) 

### William K. Suter, ClerkofCourt

### etai., ) ) 

### Defendants. ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED APR 1

## 2 2010 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia

This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs

### pro se complaint and application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The application to proceed 

### informapauperis will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to the Court's authority under 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915A(b). Alleging that his First Amendmentright ofaccess to the courts has been abridged, and that he has been denied due process and equal protection ofthe laws, the plaintiffasserts in his complaint claims for damages and injunctive reliefunder 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) & 1986, 

### see Compl. at 3 &**~~** 134-145, and purports to sue - each in his or her "individual capacity"

- the Clerk ofthe United States Supreme Court, three ofhis assistants, the Director ofthe Administrative Office ofthe United States Courts, two sitting Supreme Court Justices, the United States Attorney General, and a John Doe in the Executive Office ofthe Solicitor General, 

### id.**~~** 3-9. The injurious events alleged in the complaint are (1) the refusal by the Clerk and his staffto file the plaintiffs petition for a writ ofcertiorari, 

### id.**~~** 15 

### etseq., and (2) the failure of each ofthe other named defendants to ensure that the plaintiffs submissions were filed with the Clerk ofthe United States Supreme Court, 

### id.**~~** 19 

### et seq. The plaintiffs claim for damages mustbe dismissed. Despite the fact that the plaintiff**~tates** that he is suing each defendant in his or her "individual capacity," his allegations do not upport this position. All the events alleged are unequivocally actions taken in each defendant'sexercise ofhis or her office, that is, in his or her official capacity. Moreover, the Justices and the Clerk and his staffare immune from this suit for damages because they enjoyjudicial immunity, Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the damages claims against the members ofthe federaljudiciary will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Similarly, sovereign immunity bars this suit for damages against the federal executive officials. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996); UnitedStates v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,212 (1983); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,484-85 (1994). As sovereign immunity is jurisdictional, the damages claims against the federal executive officials will be dismissed for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. In addition to damages, the plaintiffseeks a "mandatory injunction" ordering the Clerk of the Supreme Court to file certain documents. CompI. at 76. This request will also be denied because, among otherthings, this Court does not havejurisdictionto issue injunctive reliefwith respect to the Clerk ofthe United States Supreme Court, as that would interfere with the Supreme Court's exclusive supervisory authority over its Clerk. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ( per curiam ). A separate order ofdismissal accompanies this /

Date:

## C:~ 

# lJ; 't.-o' {)

2