Court Opinion

ID: 9556560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 18:00:54.035663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:50.842123
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-5135                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                      1:23-cv-00883-UNA
                                                      Filed On: August 17, 2023
Paul E. Jozwiak,

              Appellant

       v.

David C. Bury,

              Appellee

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Wilkins and Walker, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle*, Senior Circuit
                     Judge

                                     JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and appellant’s
motion regarding case status and schedule, it is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed on April 17, 2023
be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case without awaiting any
response from the defendant because the appellee is entitled to judicial immunity from
a damages suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing that the court shall dismiss a
case filed in forma pauperis “at any time” if the court determines it is frivolous, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an
immune defendant); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per
curiam) (“An in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous . . . if it is
clear from the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from
suit on the claims asserted.”). Despite appellant’s contentions to the contrary, the
district court correctly concluded that his damages claims against a federal judge are

      * Senior Circuit Judge Sentelle was a member of the panel at the time the case
was submitted, but did not participate in this judgment.
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5135                                                September Term, 2022

barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C.
Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from suits for money
damages for all actions taken in the judge's judicial capacity, unless these actions are
taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”). Appellant also has not
demonstrated that the appellee acted in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (describing the relevant inquiry as
“whether at the time [the defendant judge] took the challenged action he had jurisdiction
over the subject matter before him”). Appellant has not challenged the district court’s
conclusion that it could not review the actions of another federal district court or compel
it to act and thus has forfeited any such argument. See United States ex rel. Totten v.
Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that
parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”). It is

      FURTHER ORDERED that the motion regarding case status and schedule be
dismissed as moot.

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                 FOR THE COURT:
                                                 Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                          BY:    /s/
                                                 Daniel J. Reidy
                                                 Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2