ORDER

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.

On September 17, 2018, pro se plaintiff initiated this action by filing suit in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida. In his complaint, he names a number of parties, including federal judges and prosecutors.1 Although apparently none of the parties have been served, several of the federal defendants removed the case to this Court on January 24, 2019, on the basis of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1442(a)(1). The federal defendants have now moved to dismiss this case on several grounds. See Docs. 7 & 10. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc. 11).

Plaintiff is currently facing a criminal charge in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and is set to be tried on February 26, 2019. See United States v. Hameen, No. 3:18-cr-115-J-34JBT. In this complaint, he names as parties the United States District Judge presiding over his federal criminal case, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to that case, the Assistant United States Attorneys who are prosecuting him, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, the United States District Judge who denied a federal habeas petition designed to interfere with then pending state charges,2 the Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida, a federal task force officer, and a detective with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.3 The essence of plaintiff's complaint appears to stem from his apparent belief that the United States does not have jurisdiction to prosecute him for this offense on theories that he has not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction and/or that the United States does not have jurisdiction to prosecute an offense that took place in Florida.4

For several reasons, this complaint must be dismissed with prejudice. First, the judicial officers are absolutely immune from suit as all the allegations relate to their judicial responsibilities in handling cases properly before them. See, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978); Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005). The judges are therefore due to be dismissed with prejudice. Second, the prosecutors, including the U.S. Attorney herself, are likewise due to be accorded absolute prosecutorial immunity as the actions about which plaintiff complains were performed within the scope of their duties as officers of the Court and advocates for the government.5 See, e.g., Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 340-45 (2009); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424-30 (1976); see also Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1241 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating that immunities afforded state officials in § 1983 actions are coextensive with those afforded federal officials in Bivens actions). The prosecutors are therefore due to be dismissed with prejudice. Third, the Clerk of Court is absolutely immune from suit as any duties she may have performed were related to the judicial process.6 See, e.g., Jenkins v. Clerk of Court, U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of Fla., 150 F. App'x 988, 990 (11th Cir. 2005). The Clerk of Court is therefore due to be dismissed with prejudice. Fourth, although named as defendants in the caption, the body of plaintiff's complaint contains no allegations against the Clerk of Court, the federal task force officer, or the detective, and only a fleeting reference to the U.S. Attorney (who he asserts is improperly invoking jurisdiction in his criminal case). They are therefore due to be dismissed with prejudice. Fifth, even if all the defendants had been served (of which there is no evidence), and even if most of them were not immune from suit, the case would still be due to be dismissed in its entirety because it is patently frivolous.7 See supra, n.4; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 7 & 10) are granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants. The Clerk shall close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED.