ROWLAND v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION to 8 Order on 5 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/1/2013. (lcjeb3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DAVONTA MELVIN ROWLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 13-1491 (JEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Davonta Rowland brings this action against the “United States District
Court.” Although largely incomprehensible, the half-page Complaint appears to voice
dissatisfaction with the decisions of U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who dismissed two of
Plaintiff’s pro se federal cases. See Rowland v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 12-1851; Rowland v.
Nat’l Gallery of Art, No. 12-1430. He claims Judge Leon “ignored the constitution and is
responsible for abuse of process without due process.” Compl. at 1. His suit seeks $26 billion in
damages.
The most basic reason why this suit may proceed no farther is the doctrine of judicial
immunity. “Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of
judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson
v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). The purpose of the doctrine is to “protect judicial
independence by insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants,”
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988) (citation omitted) – precisely the case here. As a
result, “judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their
judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been
1

done maliciously or corruptly.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (citation and
internal quotation omitted).
The Complaint must thus be dismissed. An Order so ruling will issue this day.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date:

November 1, 2013

2