Sibley v. Roberts, 224 F. Supp. 3d 29

Montgomery Blair Sibley, formerly counsel for Deborah Palfrey in a 2007 criminal case, sought to publicize Verizon Wireless records subpoenaed in that case and submitted motions to modify a restraining order and to disqualify the assigned judge.
Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts denied Sibley leave to file those motions and directed Clerk Angela O. Caesar not to docket them; Caesar complied. Sibley then filed motions to reconsider and to disqualify Roberts, which Roberts again ordered not docketed.
Sibley sued Roberts and Caesar in D.C. Superior Court; defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss. Sibley amended his complaint and also moved to recuse Judge Reggie B. Walton and the entire D.D.C. bench.
Claims: (1) Bivens-style First and Fifth Amendment claims for refusal to docket (against Roberts and Caesar); (2) request for declaratory relief that Verizon subpoena returns are not subject to the restraining orders; (3) motion to recuse the judge/bench under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455.
The court found Sibley’s recusal submission legally insufficient, held the defendants entitled to absolute judicial/clerk immunity for actions integral to judicial process, and ruled the declaratory claim an improper collateral attack on another judge’s order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recusal of the presiding judge/entire bench	Sibley claimed Roberts and Caesar had "close personal relationships" with every judge, so no judge could be impartial	Allegations lack particularized facts, do not meet §144 affidavit or §455 objective standard	Denied — affidavit insufficient under §144; professional relationships not grounds for §455 recusal
Bivens damages for alleged First Amendment chill by denying docketing	Roberts and Caesar violated Sibley’s First Amendment right to access courts/publish by refusing to docket motions	Judicial and clerk immunity: judges/clerk performing judicial functions are absolutely immune; Bivens not extended here	Dismissed — claims barred by absolute judicial/clerk immunity
Fifth Amendment claim re: impartial tribunal (failure to docket disqualification motion)	Denial of docketing of disqualification motion deprived Sibley of an impartial tribunal	Action was a judicial act within jurisdiction; immunity applies	Dismissed — judicial immunity bars the claim
Declaratory relief that subpoena returns are free of restraining order	Sibley sought court declaration overriding another judge’s restraining order	Declaratory challenge is an improper collateral attack; proper remedy is direct appeal	Denied — claim barred by collateral attack doctrine

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages action against federal officers)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judicial immunity covers judicial acts even if alleged malicious)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity not overcome by error, malice, or excess of authority)
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300 (orders of the court of first instance must be respected until reversed)
Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (limits on collateral attacks to court orders)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual matter required for plausibility)