Sibley v. U.S. Supreme Court
786 F. Supp. 2d 338
D.D.C.2011Background
- Sibley, pro se, was suspended from Florida bar for three years on March 7, 2008.
- DC Court of Appeals suspended Sibley’s DC license for three years and required an affidavit he was not practicing in DC.
- Sibley alleged DC Bar rules and practices violated his constitutional rights.
- He contends the Supreme Court suspended him in that Court without ruling on a petition; he was disbarred before the Supreme Court on May 17, 2010.
- Sibley filed petitions and motions before the Supreme Court, alleging various failures, and sued multiple federal and DC appellate actors, including Justices, Leon, Kennedy, Holder, LCCA, Clerk Langer, Deputy Clerk Rapp, and the Marshals Service.
- The court granted the motions to dismiss, dismissing the case in its entirety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the federal judges and clerks entitled to absolute judicial immunity? | Sibley argues immunity does not apply to their actions. | Defendants contend absolute judicial immunity bars claims against Justices, Leon, Kennedy, Rapp, and Langer. | Granted; all such claims dismissed due to absolute judicial immunity. |
| Is the District of Columbia Court of Appeals a suable entity (sui juris)? | DC Court of Appeals is sueable for alleged misconduct. | DCCA is non sui juris absent explicit statutory authorization. | Dismissed; DC Court of Appeals not a suable entity. |
| Can injunctive or declaratory relief be sought against the Supreme Court or its agents? | Requests for declaratory relief and to compel official action against the Supreme Court should be entertained. | District court cannot review Supreme Court decisions or compel action; no jurisdiction over appellate bodies. | Dismissed; claims against Supreme Court and appellate actors fail for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Has FTCA claim against the Marshals Service been exhausted and is the court vested with jurisdiction? | FTCA claim should proceed; discovery warranted for jurisdictional facts. | FTCA requires administrative exhaustion; no pre-suit administrative claim found prior to December 28, 2010; discovery not appropriate here. | Lacked jurisdiction; FTCA claim dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. |
| Do procedural service requirements affect the claims against unnamed Deputy Marshals? | Claims proceed notwithstanding service issues. | Unserved unnamed Deputy Marshals cannot be sued; personal service required. | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (absolute judicial immunity shields judges in their official acts)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (immunity maintained despite alleged errors or excesses within jurisdiction)
- Sibley v. Breyer, 456 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2006) (absolute immunity for participating in prior actions bars new suits)
- Marin v. Suter, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (district court lacks jurisdiction to review Supreme Court decisions)
- Moore v. Burger, 655 F.2d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (judicial acts within jurisdiction are immune from suit)
- Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society, 480 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2007) (DC government bodies are not sui juris absent explicit authorization)
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (FTCA claims require strict compliance with conditions of waiver)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (FTCA exhaustion prerequisite requires filing administrative claim before suit)