Hill v. Leibovitz ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ERIC RODNEY HILL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-00549 (UNA)
)
)
LYNN LEIBOVITZ )
Judge, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint against D.C. Superior Court Judge Lynn
Leibovitz and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application
and dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate dismissal of a
prisoner’s case against a governmental officer upon a determination that the complaint is frivolous
or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted).
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the D.C. Jail. He alleges, among other wrongs, that on February
15, 2022, Judge Leibovitz “put” him “in jail because she did not like [him] personally[.]” Compl.,
ECF No. 1 at 6; see Am. Compl., ECF No. 5 (adding false imprisonment claim). Plaintiff seeks
“one hundred thousand dollars in actual and punitive damages.” Compl. at 6.
An “in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous . . . if it is clear from
the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims
asserted.” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). It is established that judges
enjoy absolute immunity from suits for damages based, as here, on their rulings in a judicial
proceeding within their jurisdiction. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991); Forrester v.
1
White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also
Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 179 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding “claims against the district
and court of appeals judges . . . patently frivolous because . . . judges are absolutely immune from
lawsuits predicated, as here, for their official acts”); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170,
172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (a complaint against judges who have “done
nothing more than their duty” is “a meritless action.”). Because no “allegation of other facts”
could plausibly cure this defect, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 1 Firestone v. Firestone,
76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam). A separate order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/___________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: May 10, 2023 United States District Judge
1
Plaintiff’s recourse for alleged judicial bias during the Superior Court proceedings, see Compl. at 6, 8-
12, lies, if at all, in an appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
2