Court Opinion

ID: 9912425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 15:00:53.531272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:59:17.528102
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                        ____________
No. 23-7087                                                   September Term, 2023
                                                                       1:23-cv-01004-UNA
                                                         Filed On: December 22, 2023
Anthony Braxton,

              Appellant

       v.

District of Columbia,

              Appellee

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

       BEFORE:          Henderson, Pillard, and Pan, 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). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion to
appoint counsel and for an injunction seeking a transfer to another facility, and the
supplement to the brief, it is

        ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases,
appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated
sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

     FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an injunction be denied. Appellant has
shown no valid basis for this court to grant injunctive relief. It is

       FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June
12, 2023 be affirmed. Appellant appears to be challenging actions that judges of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia have taken in two of his cases, which were
ongoing at the time of the district court’s dismissal. Appellant may not maintain an
action in federal court for declaratory or injunctive relief regarding ongoing state criminal
prosecutions. See Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 78 (2013) (citing
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). Additionally, to the extent appellant seeks
damages based on the judges’ rulings, his claims are barred by judicial immunity. See
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-7087                                                September Term, 2023

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.”).

        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