Case Name: Hong MAI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Circuit Executive, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-16
Citations: 5 F. App'x 78
Docket Number: No. 00-6056
Parties: Hong MAI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Circuit Executive, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: JACOBS, CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 78–78

Head Matter:
Hong MAI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Circuit Executive, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-6056.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 16, 2001.
Hong Mai, Richmond Hill, NY, pro se.
Scott Dunn, Brooklyn, NY, United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York; Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney and Varuni Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief, for appellee.
JACOBS, CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
The Honorable Barbara S. Jones, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.
Hong Mai, pro se, appeals Judge Ross's order dismissing her case against John Doe, the Circuit Executive of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Mai, a frequent litigator who has filed 41 actions in this Court alone, alleged that various complaints she has filed in the district court and the court of appeals have been neglected. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that court clerks enjoy absolute immunity when, as in this case, they act at the direction of the judges of the court, and that, in any event, Mai failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. See Mai v. Doe, No. 99-1605 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2000).