Court Opinion

ID: 9363351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 22:00:44.116269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.474794
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABDUL AZEEM MOHAMMED,              )
                                   )
                                   )
          Plaintiff,               )
                                   )                   Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-03489
v.                                 )
                                   )
JOSEPH ROBINETTTE BIDEN JR, et al. )
                                   )
           Defendants.             )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff, a resident of Naperville, Illinois, filed this pro se lawsuit against the President

of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States and the Assistant Attorney

General for Civil Rights, both United States Senators from Illinois, and the Director of the

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AO”).

       The crux of Plaintiff’s allegations is that the Defendants have all failed to investigate, or

take action to remove from the federal judiciary, twenty-four judges of the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of Illinois (“Northern District”) and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

These judges include the Northern District judge who dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleging

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act; the members of the Executive Committee of the

Northern District who sanctioned Plaintiff for abusive litigation practices; and every judge of the

Seventh Circuit who joined orders affirming the original dismissal and imposition of sanctions,

or the imposition of additional sanctions for abuses in the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff seeks

damages of $1,000,000 on each of the complaint’s twelve counts against the Department of

Justice officials, Senators, and AO Director, as well as an order directing the President to initiate

removal proceedings against all the subject judges. He also seeks an order finding that the

                                                  1
judges “committed fraud upon the court, treason, judicial trespass, and violation of oath of

office.” Compl. 15.

        Plaintiff arrives in this Court with a documented history of vexatious litigation. From

February 2016 to June 2020, Plaintiff filed at least fourteen cases in the Northern District of

Illinois. See Exec. Comm. Order at 1, Mohammed v. Comcast, 22-cv-4679, ECF No. 24 (N.D.

Ill. Nov. 7, 2022) (summarizing Plaintiff’s litigation history). Due to Plaintiff’s “pattern of filing

duplicative and frivolous cases” and his failure to pay his court fees, Plaintiff has been repeatedly

sanctioned by the Northern District and the Seventh Circuit. Id. at 2; see, e.g., Mohammed v.

Anderson, 833 F. App’x. 651, 655 (7th Cir. 2020); In re Mohammed, 834 F. App’x 240, 241 (7th

Cir. 2021); In re Mohammed, No. 20-c-3479 at 2, ECF No. 82 (7th Cir. Oct. 26, 2021);

Mohammed v. Prairie State Legal Servs., Inc., No. 20-2419, ECF No. 88 (7th Cir. Dec. 9, 2021).

In June and August 2020, the Executive Committee of the Northern District issued orders

restricting Plaintiff’s ability to file new cases, which were upheld by the Seventh Circuit. In re

Mohammed, 834 F. App’x at 241. In December 2021, the Seventh Circuit directly sanctioned

Plaintiff for filing frivolous appeals, instructing that “the clerks of all federal courts in this circuit

are directed to return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by him or on his

behalf.” Mohammed, No. 20-2419, ECF No. 88 (7th Cir. Dec. 9, 2021). To work around these

restrictions, Plaintiff began filing suit in state court so that his cases would be removed to federal

court “as a way of bypassing the current filing restrictions.” See Exec. Comm. Order at 1–2,

Mohammed, 22-cv-4679, ECF No. 24. In response, the Executive Committee of the Northern

District ordered that any of Plaintiff’s cases removed to the district court be dismissed. Id.

        Plaintiff apparently seeks to sidestep the pre-filing injunction in the Northern District by

suing only Washington, D.C.-based officials and filing the present complaint in this Court. To

                                                    2
no avail. Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from a host of fatal infirmities. The Court need highlight

but a few.

       First, the principle of separation of powers prevents this Court from ordering the

President to refer a judge for removal—a power the President almost certainly does not have—or

ordering Members of Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. See, e.g., Nixon v. United

States, 506 U.S. 224, 234–35 (1993) (holding that “impeachment was designed to be the only

check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature” and thus, “the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court

in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments.” (emphasis in original)); INS v.

Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 (1983) (“The Constitution sought to . . . assure, as nearly as possible,

that each Branch of government would confine itself to its assigned responsibility.”).

       Second, Members of Congress enjoy official immunity for actions taken in their

legislative capacities. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982). Their role in exercising

Congress’ power to impeach federal judges certainly falls within the scope of that immunity.

The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the two Illinois Senators named as defendants.

       Third, federal judges too enjoy immunity for their judicial rulings. Harlow, 457 U.S. at

807. Moreover, finding in Plaintiff’s favor and granting him the relief he seeks would

necessarily require the Court to invalidate rulings issued by fellow district court judges (as well

as higher-level circuit judges), which it cannot do. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of appeals

(other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of

appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States[.]”).

       Fourth, Plaintiff complains that the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General for

Civil Rights have failed to investigate illegal conduct on the part of the subject judges. Yet this

                                                   3
Court has no authority to review the Justice Department’s exercise of its broad discretion to

investigate or prosecute individual cases. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

        Finally, Plaintiff’s alleged injuries all stem from the dismissal of his lawsuit and

imposition of sanctions in the Northern District of Illinois. He does not explain how those

injuries are traceable to the Defendants’ failure to remove or discipline the subject judges. Nor

does he allege any new harm caused by the Defendants. Plaintiff therefore lacks standing. See

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

        For all these reasons, and more, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, and the case,

with prejudice. Plaintiff is admonished that any further attempt to circumvent the pre-filing

injunction imposed in the Seventh Circuit by filing substantially similar claims here may lead to

the imposition of additional sanctions by this Court.

        A separate Order will follow.

                                                              CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                              United States District Judge

Date:    January 13, 2023

                                                  4