Fuller v. Harris, 258 F. Supp. 3d 204

Plaintiff Jancis Fuller, a Connecticut state prisoner serving a 30-year sentence, attempted in June 2014 to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court; Supreme Court clerks Scott Harris and Clayton Higgins refused, deeming it untimely.
Fuller filed this suit in the D.D.C. on May 9, 2017 asking the district court to order the clerks to file her petition; the court dismissed the action three days later for lack of authority to compel a higher court’s officers.
Thirty-one days after dismissal, Fuller moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint (styled under Rule 15) seeking damages and declaratory relief, asserting her prior pleading’s relief request was drafted by a legal advisor and misstated available remedies.
The district court construed her motion liberally as seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate the dismissal and allow an amended complaint, and evaluated whether doing so would be futile.
The proposed Amended Complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the clerks violated her right of access to courts and sought compensatory and punitive damages for refusal to file her certiorari petition.
The court concluded clerks are absolutely immune from damages for judicial acts and that district courts lack jurisdiction to grant the requested declaratory relief concerning the Supreme Court’s supervisory authority over its Clerk, so vacating the judgment would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court should vacate its dismissal under Rule 60(b) to allow an amended complaint	Fuller contends she should get a second chance to proceed on damages and declaratory claims because her original relief request was incorrect	Defendants assert that even if error occurred, immunity and jurisdictional limits make any amended complaint futile	Denied: vacatur would be futile because claims for damages are barred and declaratory relief is beyond district court jurisdiction
Whether clerks can be sued for damages for refusing to file a certiorari petition	Fuller argues clerks acted illegally, not at a Justice’s direction, and had no discretion to refuse filing, so they're liable	Defendants invoke absolute judicial immunity for clerks performing integral judicial functions	Held: Clerks are absolutely immune from suit for such judicial acts; damages claims fail
Whether district court can grant declaratory relief that clerks violated constitutional right of access to courts	Fuller seeks a declaratory judgment that her rights were violated	Defendants argue the Supreme Court has exclusive supervisory authority over its Clerk and district courts lack jurisdiction to interfere	Held: District court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief interfering with Supreme Court’s exclusive supervisory authority

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judicial immunity is immunity from suit)
Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C. Cir.) (clerks immune for tasks integral to judicial process)
Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir.) (immunity covers auxiliary court personnel unless clear absence of jurisdiction)
In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir.) (Supreme Court’s exclusive supervisory authority over its Clerk; lower courts lack jurisdiction)
Reddy v. O’Connor, 520 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C.) (clerk’s receipt/processing of filings is part of adjudication and protected by immunity)