Court Opinion

ID: 9953709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 18:00:59.838231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:56.105866
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-5259                                                 September Term, 2023
                                                                       1:23-cv-02501-UNA
                                                       Filed On: March 22, 2024
Dmt MacTruong, also known as Dr. Mac
Truong,

              Appellant

       v.

Anthony C. Valenziano, et al.,

              Appellees

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

       BEFORE:       Henderson, Millett, and Walker, Circuit Judges

                                     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). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 11,
2023 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground
that it was frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.”). The district court correctly concluded that appellant’s claim for
damages based on judges’ rulings are barred by 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.”); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“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.”). Additionally, appellant has not shown any error in the district court’s
conclusion that there is no private right of action under the criminal statutes he cited or
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See Crosby v. Catret, 308 F. App’x 453,
453 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (stating that there is no private right of action under 18 U.S.C.
                  United States Court of Appeals
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                       ____________
No. 23-5259                                                  September Term, 2023

§ 241); see also Lee v. United States Agency for Int’l Dev., 859 F.3d 74, 77-78 (D.C.
Cir. 2017) (“[T]he express provision of a criminal penalty . . . in a bare criminal statute,
with no other statutory basis for inferring that a civil cause of action exists, is insufficient
to imply Congress intended to create a concomitant civil remedy.”) (cleaned up).
Moreover, appellant has not shown that the court erred in dismissing the complaint with
prejudice. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam)
(“A dismissal with prejudice is warranted . . . when a trial court determines that the
allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure
the deficiency.”) (cleaned up).

        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/
                                                           Michael C. McGrail
                                                           Deputy Clerk

                                            Page 2