UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

DONALD G . JONES, P laintif f,
v. Civil Action No. 10-0910 (JD B) UNITED STAT ES S UP REME COURT, et al. Defendan ts.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION This matter is befor e the Court on its initi al re view of pla intiff’s pro se c omplaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is require d to dismi ss a complaint, " [n] otwithstanding any filing f ee," upon a dete rmination that it is "frivolous or malicious," "f ails to state a cla im on which re lief may

be grante d," or

"se eks monetar

y relief from a de fenda

nt who is imm une fr om such re lief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B ). Plaintiff Donald Jones bring this suit ag ainst the United States Supreme Court and ove r 40 justices, judg es, Clerks of Court a nd their deputy

cler ks, for actions they

have ta ken in ca ses he ha s filed in sever al fe dera l courts. In the cour se of his 1 597-pag e complaint, he a lleg es primar ily that defe ndants have acte d unlawfully in denying various applications to proceed in f orma pa uperis, issue summonses, ac cept his docume nts for filing, r efusingto rec use themselves f rom his case s, and g ener ally failingto execute their judicial office s. He see ks damag es in the amount of $42,000,000,000, a nd injunctive relief

ag ainst all The U.S. Supreme Court de fenda nts are Chief

J ustice Roberts, Just ices Ke nnedy , 1 Thomas, Scalia, a

nd Br eyer, the Clerk of Court Will iam K. Suter, and deputy cler ks J eff rey Atkins, Christopher Vasil, and Ga il J ohnson. The other defe ndants are numerous cir cuit and district judge s, Clerks of Court, and their deputies from the following jurisdictions: t he U.S. District Court for the District of Columbi a, the U.S. District Court for the Norther n District of Geor g ia (Atlanta

Division), the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the Eleve nth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Ea stern District of L ouisiana, and the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F ifth Circuit.defe ndants to preve nt them from furthe r violatingtheir judicial duties. See Compl., ECF Doc

.

No. 1, at 572. J udg es ar e absolutely

immune from lawsuits predic ated on a cts taken, a s alleg ed her e, in their judicial ca

pacities. F orre ster v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Stump v. S parkma n, 435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F .2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). This immunit y extends to court clerks who pe rfor m "tasks that a

re a n integ ral pa

rt of the judicial proce ss." Sindram, 986 F .2d at 1160-61; Hilska v. Suter, 308 F ed. App' x 451, 452 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (" cler

ks enjoy absolute immunity

from dama g es for

perf ormanc e of ta sks that are an integ ral pa

rt of the judicial pr ocess" ). The c lerk or deputy cler k' s rec eipt and proc essingof a litigant' s filings a

nd manag ement of summonses ar e par t and par cel of

the proc ess of a djudicating

case s. Reddy

v. O' Connor, 520 F. Supp. 2d 124, 130 (D.D .C. 2007). To the extent plaintiff seeks injunctive re lief stemming f rom ruling s, he is in the wrong court. This cour

t is not a reviewingcourt a nd cannot c ompel Supreme Court justices or other Article I I Ijudge s in this or other districts or circ uits to act. See, e.g ., Hilska, 308 Fe d. App' x at 452 (" L ower

courts have no supervisory authority over the Supreme Court or its employees." ) (citingMarin v. Suter, 956 F .2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992)); Sander s v. United States, 184 Fe d. App' x 13, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (holdingthat the district court " lack[s] jurisdiction to review decisions" of anothe r U.S. court of appea ls) (per

curia m). The c omplaint therefor e will be dismissed. A separ ate Or der a ccompa nies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ J OHN D. B ATES United States District J udg e Date: June 9, 2010
2