Sharp v. U.S. Supreme Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera denying as moot Plaintiff Sharp's Motion for Summary Judgment 7 and Second Motion for Summary Judgment 8 and dismissing the complaint filed by Plaintiff Tommy Sharp on July 29, 2021 1 . (baw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. CV 21-00705 JCH/KBM
U.S. SUPREME COURT
(ALL 9 JUSTICES),
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on the complaint filed by
Plaintiff Tommy Sharp on July 29, 2021. (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that it seeks monetary damages against defendants who are immune from relief and the
allegations fail to state a claim for relief and are frivolous.
Plaintiff Tommy (Donald Thomas) Sharp filed his complaint in this Court on July 29, 2021.
(Doc. 1).1 Sharp names, as Defendants “U.S. Supreme Court (All 9 Justices)”. (Doc. 1 at 1).
Sharp’s complaint alleges, in its entirety:
“Plaintiff submitted conclusive evidence of treason and other crimes
by the State of New Mexico elected officials to all supreme court
justices, and requested action. The Misprision of Treason law
requires the reporting of treason to a judge of the United States, 18 U.S.C.
2382; or the treason witness can get 7 years in prison for not reporting
treason. Judges are required to act upon the treason evidence and not
cover up or ignore the evidence. IF the judge ignores the evidence,
the judge commits the crime of misprision of treason and becomes
culpable in the treason as an accomplice in a conspiracy to cover up
Justice Clarence Thomas’ aid responded to the Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff Sharp is an abusive litigant who has filed in excess of 40 cases in the Court since July 1,
2021. The Court has imposed filing restrictions and strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Sharp
v. State of New Mexico, No. CV 21-00700 WJ/SMV, Doc. 29.
evidence and complaint. The gist of the response was that the
Plaintiff does not have standing. This is evidence of the cover
up by the supreme court.
Plaintiff is suing for damages and action by the supreme court
to stop the New Mexico and U.S. Racketeering Influenced Corrupt
Organization. Supreme court justices are citizens of the U.S. and the
laws apply to them just like everyone else.
Therefore the Plaintiff seeks damages for the U.S. Supreme
Court’s dereliction of their duty as judges by not doing anything
about treason and the RICO activities.
Plaintiff seeks to force the U.S. Supreme Court to do its duty
to God and country and arrest the RICO perpetrators. Evidence can be
found in Exhibits 1 through 8, 1st District Court of New Mexico, State
of New Mexico v. Sharp, 2020.
Plaintiff seeks $100 million in damages against the supreme court
for their involvement in the conspiracy to overthrow the government of the
U.S., RICO Act conspiracy, and treason against the people of the U.S.”
(Doc. 1 at 1-2).
The United States Code requires this Court to screen the complaint in any civil action where
a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Section 1915A of Title 28 provides:
“On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In this case, Plaintiff Sharp seeks monetary relief from the Justices of the
United States Supreme Court who are judicial officers of a governmental entity. Therefore, the
case is subject to preliminary screening under § 1915A.
Sharp’s damages claims are against judicial officers acting as judges. (Doc. 1 at 1-2). The
claims are clearly barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
355-56 (1978); Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1473-76 (10th Cir. 1990); Hunnicutt v. Sewell,
147 N.M. 272, 277-78, 219 P.3d 529, 534-45 (Ct. App. 2009). It is well settled that the doctrine
of judicial immunity is applicable in actions such as the case at bar. Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791
F.2d 1431, 1434–35 (10th Cir.1986); Collins on Behalf of Collins v. Tabet, 111 N.M. 391, 396,
806 P.2d 40, 45 (1991). Absolute immunity bars all suits for money damages for acts made in the
exercise of judicial discretion. Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027, 1033 (10th Cir.2006).
The United States Supreme Court has recognized absolute immunity for officials whose
special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit. Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982). The purpose of absolute judicial immunity is:
“to benefit the public, ‘whose interest is that the judges should be at liberty to
exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.’ The
Supreme Court has recognized that ‘the loser in one forum will frequently seek another,
charging the participants in the first with unconstitutional animus.’ Therefore, absolute
immunity is necessary so that judges can perform their functions without harassment or
Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d at 1434–35.
Sharp seeks to recover damages against all nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices for acts that
were unquestionably made in the exercise of judicial discretion. “Plaintiff seeks damages for the
U.S. Supreme Court’s dereliction of their duty as judges.” (Doc. 1 at 2). Any damages claims
against the Justices of the Supreme Court are barred by absolute judicial immunity. Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 807.
Further, to the extent Sharp asserts any claims for relief other than monetary damages,
those allegations fail to state any claim for relief and are frivolous. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
the Court must accept all well-pled factual allegations, but not conclusory, unsupported
allegations, and may not consider matters outside the pleading. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989). The court may
dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if “it is ‘patently obvious’ that
the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th
Cir. 1991) (quoting McKinney v. Oklahoma Dep’t of Human Services, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th
Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim should be dismissed where it is legally or factually
insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Id.
A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable legal basis or contains fanciful factual
allegations. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1108 (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989)). A determination of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the factual allegations rise
to the level of irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). A
delusional scenario will justify a 1915(d) dismissal for factual frivolousness. See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. at 327-28. Dismissal is appropriate for a claim based on an indisputably
meritless legal or factual theory. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 325–30; Johnson v. Raemisch,
763 F. App'x 731, 733 (10th Cir. 2019).
Plaintiff Sharp’s complaint is wholly lacking in either legal or factual merit and is frivolous.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 325–30. It does not state any claim for relief that is plausible on
the face of the complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The complaint lacks any arguable legal
basis and contains irrational factual allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 33. Therefore,
any claims for relief in Sharp’s complaint are subject to dismissal under § 1915A(b).
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Sharp’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7) and
Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 8). The Court will deny the two Motions as moot
in light of the dismissal of this case.2
IT IS ORDERED:
The Second Motion for Summary Judgment appears to be related to another case, Sharp v. Biden,
but bears the case number for this case, CV 21-705.
(1) Plaintiff Sharp’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7) and Second Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 8) are DENIED as moot; and
(2) the complaint filed by Plaintiff Tommy Sharp on July 29, 2021 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
SENIOR 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?