Hill v. Krauthamer ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ERIC RODNEY HILL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-01010 (UNA)
)
)
PETER A. KRAUTHAMER, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint against D.C. Superior Court Judge Peter
Krauthamer 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 that on June 7, 2022, Judge Krauthamer
allowed “a witness to lie in court on the witness stand.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5. As a result, he
was denied a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution and “falsely convicted.” Id. Plaintiff seeks “one
hundred thousand dollars in actual, punitive damages.” Id. 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 decisions in a judicial
proceeding within their jurisdiction. See Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991); Forrester v.
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/_____________
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
Date: May 18, 2023 United States District Judge
1
Plaintiff’s recourse for an unconstitutional conviction in Superior Court lies, if at all, in an appeal to the
D.C. Court of Appeals.
2