Court Opinion

ID: 9410771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 15:02:30.040249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.294010
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-7046                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                     1:23-cv-00819-UNA
                                                      Filed On: July 24, 2023
Ansera Benet Dupree, Jr.,

             Appellant

      v.

James Horwitz, Judge,

             Appellee

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

      BEFORE:       Pillard and Rao, 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 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 to appoint counsel, 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 AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s April 12, 2023,
order be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s claims for damages
because appellee is absolutely immune from suits for money damages for actions taken
within his judicial jurisdiction. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir.
1993) (per curiam). Further, to the extent appellant seeks to vacate orders issued by
appellee, a state court judge, his case was properly dismissed because federal district
courts do not have jurisdiction over “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of
injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings
commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-7046                                                September Term, 2022

        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