### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM M. WINDSOR ) ) ) ) 

### Plaintiff,prose 

### v. JUDGE ORINDA D. EVANS, etal. 

### Defendants. ) Civil Case No. 10-0197 (RJL) ) ) ) ) 

# 1-r--- MEMORANDUM OPINION

(February**~,** 

### 2010) [# 

### 3] This case is before the Court on plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. For the following reasons, plaintiffs motion is DENIED and his Complaint DISMISSED. Plaintiffis a serial filer. His action in this Court arises out oflitigation in the Northern District ofGeorgia, where he was found to have engaged in "extreme litigiousness." 

### See Maida/the Mist Corp. 

### v. AlcatrazMedia LLC, No. 

### 06-714 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 

### 22, 2009). In fact, in the course ofthe Georgia litigation, plaintifffiled 

### sixtytwo post-judgment motions. 

### See id. at 1. While Judge Evans, who presided over the Georgia litigation, addressed all sixty-two motions with great care, plaintiffwas not pleased with her rulings, all ofwhich went against him. 

### See id. As a result, plaintiff

### initiated this action to request emergency injunctive reliefagainst Judge Evans. 1 (See 

### CompI.**~** 

### 1.) Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief, and indeed the entirety ofhis Complaint, cannot succeed because ofthe doctrine of judicial immunity. The majority ofrelief plaintiffrequests in his emergency motion seeks eitherto enjoin Judge Evans from takingjudicial acts, orto compel such acts. (See 

### PI.'s Mot. at 44.) These claims simply are not cognizable because ajudge is immune from suit on all officialjudicial acts, so long as thejudgewas not acting in the complete absence ofalljurisdiction. See Morales 

### v. Waco, 

### 502 U.S. 9,11-12 (1991). Here, there is no question that Judge Evans hadjurisdiction to decide plaintiffs motions; indeed, plaintiffdoes not even challenge this. Accordingly, she cannot be a defendant to this suit. See id. 

### at 11 (noting thatjudicial immunity is immunity from suit). Forthese reasons, plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief,2 

### and the entirety ofhis Complaint, must be dismissed against Judge Evans and all otherjudicial defendants. The remaining defendants named in plaintiffs emergency motion and Complaint must also be dismissed. With respect to these defendants, plaintiffhas failed to comply with the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal

J Plaintiffs suit also names a host ofother federal defendants, including another federal districtjudge from the Northern District ofGeorgia, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the United States Attorney General, a number ofUnited States Congressmen, and others. 

### (See CompI. at 1.)
2 Pursuant to Local Rule ofCivil Procedure 65.1, the Court determines that a hearing is not necessary to resolve plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief. 

### See Restor v. 

### CIA, No. 04-2049, 2005 WL 486148 at *1 n.1 (D.D.C. Mar. 2, 2005). 2Rules ofCivil Procedure. 3 Ratherthan providing a short and plain statement ofhis claims against these defendants, plaintiffhas submitted a 505 page Complaint which utterly fails to give defendants "fair notice" ofwhat his claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. 

### Conley v. 

### Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957). Finally, with respect to the Maid ofthe Mist defendants, who were parties to the Georgia litigation, it appears that plaintiffs attempt to sue them in this Court might be

a violation ofan Order entered by Judge Evans on December 22,2009. 

### See Maid of the Mist Corp., No. 06-714 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 22, 2009). Accordingly, this case shall be referred forthwith to the Northern District ofGeorgia so Judge Evans may consider whetherplaintiffis in contempt ofher Order. Forthese reasons, plaintiffs motion for injunctive reliefis DENIED and his Complaint must be and is DISMISSED. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately.

United States District Judge

3 Whilepro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they nevertheless must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). 3