HARRIS v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/23/2012. (lcrc3)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
Civil Action No.:
Re Document No.:
GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This suit arises from the pro se plaintiff’s unsuccessful tryout for the Tulsa 66ers, a
professional basketball franchise based in Oklahoma. The plaintiff initially brought suit in the
Northern District of Oklahoma and litigated his case all the way to the United States Supreme
Court. After the Supreme Court declined to hear his case, the plaintiff filed this suit to challenge
the wisdom of the Justices’ decision.
Of the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson once wrote: “We are not final because we are
infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540
(1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). Following Justice Jackson’s maxim, this court lacks any power
to review the Supreme Court’s actions. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per
curiam) (concluding that the District Court had no authority to require the Supreme Court to hear
the plaintiff’s (citing Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979) (“[I]t seems
axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an
action.”)); Brown v. U.S. Supreme Court, 2008 WL 5082141, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2008) (“This
Court has no authority to determine what action, if any . . . must be taken by the Justices of the
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court’s administrative officers with respect to plaintiff’s
appeals.”). Accordingly, the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
the court will grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss. An order consistent with this
memorandum opinion is separately issued this 23rd day of October, 2012.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?