UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Nathaniel J. Richardson, Jr., ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

William K. Suter, Clerk of Court et ai., ) 

) 

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 plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. The application to proceed informa pauperis 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 Amendment right of access to the courts has been abridged, and 

that he has been denied due process and equal protection of the laws, the plaintiff asserts in his 

complaint claims for damages and injunctive relief under 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 of the United States Supreme Court, three of his assistants, the Director of the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, two sitting Supreme Court Justices, the 

United States Attorney General, and a John Doe in the Executive Office of the Solicitor General, 

id. ~~ 3-9. The injurious events alleged in the complaint are (1) the refusal by the Clerk and his 

staff to file the plaintiff s petition for a writ of certiorari, id. ~~ 15 et seq., and (2) the failure of 

each of the other named defendants to ensure that the plaintiffs submissions were filed with the 

Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, id. ~~ 19 et seq. 

The plaintiff s claim for damages must be 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's 
exercise of his or her office, that is, in his or her official capacity. Moreover, the Justices and the 

Clerk and his staff are immune from this suit for damages because they enjoy judicial immunity, 

Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the damages claims against the 

members of the federal judiciary 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); United States 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 of subject matter jurisdiction. 

In addition to damages, the plaintiff seeks 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 other things, this Court does not have jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief with 

respect to the Clerk of the 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 of dismissal accompanies this 

/ 

Date: C:~ lJ; 't.-o' {) 

2