Kenneth Smith v. Elena Kagan , 616 F. App'x 90 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-1347
    KENNETH L. SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    HON. ELENA KAGAN, in their official capacities as Justices
    of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON. CLARENCE
    THOMAS, in their official capacities as Justices of THE
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON. ANTONIN G. SCALIA,
    in their official capacities as Justices of THE SUPREME
    COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., in
    their official capacities as Justices of THE SUPREME COURT
    OF THE UNITED STATES; HON. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, in their
    official capacities as Justices of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
    UNITED STATES; HON. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, in their official
    capacities as Justices of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
    STATES; HON. STEPHEN G. BREYER, in their official capacities
    as Justices of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON.
    SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., in their official capacities as
    Justices of THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HON.
    SONIA SOTOMAYOR, in their official capacities as Justices of
    THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:14-cv-01242-CMH-TCB)
    Submitted:   August 31, 2015             Decided:   September 21, 2015
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth L. Smith appeals the district court’s order sua
    sponte dismissing his civil action against the Justices of the
    United States Supreme Court.               Frivolous complaints are subject
    to dismissal pursuant to the court’s inherent authority, even
    when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee.                    See, e.g., Mallard
    v. U.S. Dist. Court, 
    490 U.S. 296
    , 307-08 (1989); Fitzgerald v.
    First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 
    221 F.3d 362
    , 364 (2d Cir.
    2000) (per curiam).         Additionally, dismissal prior to service of
    process     is   permissible       when    a    court    lacks    subject      matter
    jurisdiction over a patently frivolous complaint.                       See Surtain
    v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 
    789 F.3d 1239
    , 1248 (11th Cir. 2015)
    (per curiam); Ricketts v. Midwest Nat’l Bank, 
    874 F.2d 1177
    ,
    1181-83   (7th     Cir.   1989);    Franklin     v.     Oregon,   
    662 F.2d 1337
    ,
    1342-43 (9th Cir. 1981).
    We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
    court did not abuse its discretion in finding Smith’s complaint
    frivolous    and    in    dismissing      the   action    on   that   basis.      See
    Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325, 327-28 (1989) (defining
    frivolous claims); Nagy v. FMC Butner, 
    376 F.3d 252
    , 254-55 (4th
    Cir. 2004) (standard of review).                  We also find no abuse of
    discretion in the court’s denial of Smith’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
    59(e) motion.      See Wilkins v. Montgomery, 
    751 F.3d 214
    , 220 (4th
    Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for
    3
    Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 
    674 F.3d 369
    , 378 (4th Cir. 2012)
    (identifying      permissible     bases      for        Rule    59(e)     relief).
    Accordingly,    we    affirm    the    district     court’s      judgment.       We
    dispense   with      oral   argument     because        the    facts    and   legal
    contentions    are   adequately       presented    in    the   materials      before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4