Gorbey v. District of Columbia ( 2009 )

f\LEO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 11 2009
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1(iR W\'\I111N(l10N, ClERK
-y~S. OISlP.~l COURl
MICHAEL S. GORBEY,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action N'09 0261
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and
pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed.
The Hon. Gregory Jackson, Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, presided over plaintiffs criminal case. According to plaintiff, Judge Jackson had "no
authority[] or jurisdiction over any charge being prosecuted by the federal government," such that
his actions were "illegal and outside his judicial capasity [sic]." CompI. at 3. In addition, Judge
Jackson allegedly made erroneous rulings, refused to recuse himself, prevented plaintiff from
availing himself of the assistance of counsel, and imposed a lengthy prison sentence. See id. at 4-
7. For these alleged violations of rights protected under the United States Constitution, plaintiff
demands damages totalling $22 billion. !d. at 7.
Judge Jackson enjoys absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts committed
within his judicial jurisdiction. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484
U.S. 219 (1988); Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,20 L.Ed. 646 (1872). The prosecution of
plaintiffs criminal case falls within his jurisdiction, as the Superior Court has jurisdiction over
criminal cases under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code
§ 11-923. In the District of Columbia, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
3
conducts criminal prosecutions in the name of the United States for any violation of criminal
laws where the maximum term of imprisonment exceeds one year. See D.C. Code § 23-101.
The fact that a federal prosecutor brought charges against plaintiff does not deprive the Superior
Court of jurisdiction.
To the extent that plaintiffs claim goes to the fact of his confinement, he cannot recover
damages in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.c. § 1983 without showing that his confinement
has been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order,
declar[ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a
federal court's issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus." Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87
(1994); accord White v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). Plaintiff has not satisfied
this prerequisite and therefore fails to state a claim under Section 1983.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this
date.