Yi v. Supreme Court of the United States of America

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/29/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 3/1/16)

FILED
U~S,_OlSTRICT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~S'mt'f
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Sout1lem Divisioll

OFMARYLAND

ZOIbFEB2'1 P

*

CLEIlK'S OFFiCE
AT GREENBELT

CHONG SU YI,

*
Plaintiff,

lj: lj'

AY __

...__

f1F;: 'iY

*
C'lse No.: G.IH-15-3690

v.

*

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, et aI.,

*
*

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

OI'INION

Plaintiff brings this self-represented action against the Supreme Court of the Unitcd
States, taking issue with the Court's decision in Oherge.fell v. H(}((~es, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)
and seeking its reversal. ECr NO.1. Plainti ITappears to be indigent and his Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No.2) shall be granted. For the reasons that follow, the
Complaint must be dismissed under the provisions 01'28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e). See Neilzke
Williams, 490 U.S. 319. 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989): see also Demoll

I'.

I'.

Hernal1l/ez, 504 U.S. 25. 112

S. Ct. 1728 (1992); Cochran \'. iv/orris. 73 r,3d 1310 (4th Cir. 1996): Nasim \'. IVan/en. 64 FJd
951 (4th Cir. 1995).
The defense or absolute immunity extends to "officials whose speeial functions or
constitutional status requires cOl11pleteprotection 1i'0111
suit," lIar/o\\'

I'.

Filzgera/d. 457 U.S. 800.

807, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). Judges. whether presiding at the state or lcderal level. are clearly
among those officials who are entitled to such iml11unity.See Slump

I'.

Sparkmall. 435 U.S. 349.

98 S. Ct. 1099 (1978). Because it is a benelit to the public at large. "whose interest it is that the

judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions

and without fear of

Pierson v. Ray. 386 U.S. 547. 554. 87 S. Ct. 1213 (1967). absolute immunity is

consequences,"
necessary

with independence

so that judges can perform their functions without harassment

"Although

unfairness

and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion,

of the highest importance
exercising

the authority

apprehension

or intimidation.

to the proper administration

'it is a general principle

of justice that ajudicial

officer. in

vested in him. shall be free to act upon his own convictions.

of personal

without

to himself. ... /vlireles \'. Waco. 502 U,S, 9. 10. 112 S. Ct.

consequences

286 (1991 ) (citation omitted).
In determining
the challenged

whether a particular judge is immune,

action was "judicia'"

judge had subject matter jurisdiction.

and whether at the time the challenged

is erroneous.

A review of Plaintiffs
Supreme

malicious.
allegations

against the Supreme

as necessitating

exists even when the

does not compel the conclusion
Plaintiffs

the doctrine of judicial

with the decision

to this forum to assert allegations
Court, Because immunity

Id. at 356-57.
that the Justices of the

lawsuit is the type of action that

immunity,

Plaintiffs

Court of the United States is also subject to dismissal

of the United States is not a "person"
disagreement

absolute immunity

or in excess of judicial authority,

Court acted in clear absence of jurisdiction.

Pierson recognized

action was taken the

See Slump. 435 U,S, at 356. Unless it can be shown that a

judge acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"
alleged conduct

inquiry must be made into whether

subject to suit or liability under

S

Complaint

as the Supreme Court

1983. In apparent

reached by the United States Supreme Court. PlaintitT has turned
of unconstitutional

precludes

Plaintiffs

acts against the justices of the Supreme

recovery.

appropriate.

2

sua sponte dismissal

of the case is

To the extent. Plaintiff intended to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Petition is
also subject to dismissal. Under 28 U.S.c. ~ 1361. district courts have original jurisdiction of any
action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or an
agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff 28 U.S.c. ~ 1361 (2012). In order to meet
the requirements for mandamus reliet: a petitioner must show: that he has the clear legal right to
the relief sought: that the respondent has a clcar legal duty to do the particular act requested; and.
that no other adequate remedy is available. Id. The failure to show any of these prerequisites
defeats a district court's jurisdiction under ~ 1361. See Nal '1Ass'll O/GOI'

'I

Emps. \'. Fed. I.abor

Relalions Aulh.. 830 F. Supp. 889. 898 (E.D. Va. 1993). In addition. mandamus cannot bc used
to compel the performance of discrctionary duties of federal govcrnmcnt offiecrs: mandamus
will lie only to compel ministerial acts. I See Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes \'. Reno. 56 F.3d 1476.

1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995): PlaIa \'. Roudebush. 397 F. Supp. 1295. 1304-05 (D. Md. 1975).
Petitioner has failed to meet the above established criteria. The ruling on a case by the United
States Supreme Court is a discretionary function. solely within thc province of the Court. and is
the very opposite of a ministerial function. As Pctitioner has made no showing in the instant
action which warrants the granting of extraordinary reliet: his petition for writ of mandamus
shall be DENIED.
A separate Order follows.

h~--

Date: Februarvl ''/2016

tiEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

1A

ministerial act is one in which the law prescribes and defines a duty to be perfonned \,dth such precision as to

leave nothing to the exercise of discretion orjudgment.

Neal \'. Regan, 587 F. Supp. 1558. 1562 (N.D. Ind. 1984).

3