Smith v. Scalia
44 F. Supp. 3d 28
D.D.C.2014Background
- Smith was denied admission to the Colorado bar in 2000 after refusing a mental-status exam.
- From 2000 through 2009 Smith filed ten related suits against Colorado and federal judges regarding the bar denial; this action is his eleventh suit stemming from the same dispute.
- The current amended complaint names the United States and 19 federal judges, seeking constitutional and international-law relief and removal from the bench.
- Two groups of defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on immunity, lack of claim, res judicata, and preclusion theories; a pre-filing injunction and sanctions are also requested.
- The court concludes sovereign immunity bars damages against the United States and official-capacity judges, absolute judicial immunity bars personal-capacity claims against judges, and no actionable private rights of relief exist for the asserted claims; thus the case is dismissed with prejudice and a pre-filing injunction is issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction against the United States and official-capacity judges | Smith asserts sovereign immunity does not apply and seeks relief against defendants. | Defendants contend sovereign immunity bars suit and requires dismissal. | Yes; sovereign immunity bars the claims against the United States and official-capacity judges. |
| Whether the personal-capacity claims against the judges are barred by absolute judicial immunity | Smith argues judges can be liable for their judicial acts under constitutional theories. | Defendants argue absolute judicial immunity shields judges from such suits. | Yes; absolute judicial immunity bars personal-capacity §1983/Bivens claims against the judges. |
| Whether Counts I–II (injunctive/grand-jury relief) have a private cause of action | Smith seeks removal of judges and convening a grand jury via private action. | Defendants argue there is no private right of action for removal or grand jury relief. | Yes; Counts I–II are dismissed for lack of a private cause of action. |
| Whether Counts III–VI state cognizable claims for damages or relief | Smith asserts constitutional violations by the judges and the United States. | Defendants contend no waiver of sovereign immunity and no viable private action exist; also immunity defenses apply. | Yes; Counts III–VI fail to state actionable claims due to immunity and lack of waivers. |
| Whether a pre-filing injunction is warranted | Smith should be allowed to pursue relief for ongoing alleged misconduct. | The court should limit future filings to prevent harassment and duplicative suits. | Yes; a narrowly tailored pre-filing injunction is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1988) (absolute judicial immunity protects judges in their official acts)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (immunity extends to acts within judicial discretion)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1989) (judicial independence and tenure concepts underpin immunity analysis)
- Northwestern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1982) (sovereign immunity framework and waiver requirements)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (sovereign immunity and express waivers)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (sovereign immunity and official-capacity suits)
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1984) (prospective injunctive relief against judges and immunity considerations)
- United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1955) (impeachment and accountability remedies for judges)
- Galvan v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 461 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (circuit case on sovereign immunity and official-capacity claims)