Filed: Jun. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG , District Judge . The plaintiff has complied with the Court's May 3, 2018 Order [ECF No. 3] by filing an amended complaint containing his full residence address. On review of the amended complaint, the Court concludes that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff purports to bring this action against three judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals who allegedly violated rights protected under the Th
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG , District Judge . The plaintiff has complied with the Court's May 3, 2018 Order [ECF No. 3] by filing an amended complaint containing his full residence address. On review of the amended complaint, the Court concludes that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff purports to bring this action against three judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals who allegedly violated rights protected under the Thi..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge.
The plaintiff has complied with the Court's May 3, 2018 Order [ECF No. 3] by filing an amended complaint containing his full residence address. On review of the amended complaint, the Court concludes that the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The plaintiff purports to bring this action against three judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals who allegedly violated rights protected under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by denying the plaintiff "access [to] D.C. law licensing process." Compl. at 6. It appears that the defendants have denied the plaintiff an opportunity to take the bar exam. See id. at 3. The plaintiff demands compensatory damages, among other relief. See id. at 6-7.
Judges "are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (citation omitted), and this immunity extends to the Committee on Admissions, see Rodriguez v. Shulman, 844 F.Supp.2d 1, 12 (D.D.C. 2012); Stoddard v. Carlin, 799 F.Supp.2d 57, 66 (D.D.C. 2011).
The Court will grant the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
