HAIRSTON, SR. v. KATSOS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	25-04473 (UNA)
)
)
JUDGE KATSAS et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants the
application and dismisses the complaint.
Plaintiff sues three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
for “One Million apiece[.]” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1. The judges, Gregory G. Katsas, Neomi Rao,
and Justin R. Walker, comprised a panel that denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider “the October
3, 2025 order denying the motion to recall the mandate” in his appeal from Hairston v. Smith, No.
23-cv-3181 (UNA) (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2023). 	Compl. Ex. 4, ECF No. 1 at 11 (Order). 	Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants “deprived” him of his “civil rights as an appellant pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
242” when they ignored “overwhelming document evidence.” Compl. at 1. Yet, he implausibly
claims that this “civil suit is not connected to any ruling” nor “a substitute for an appeal” but rather
“is for monetary damages.” Id.
Judges have absolute immunity from lawsuits based, as here, on their decisions rendered
during proceedings within their jurisdiction. Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-13 (1991); Sindram
v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Further, a complaint against judges
Case 1:25-cv-04473-UNA Document 5 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
who have “done nothing more than their duty” is “a meritless action,” Fleming v. United States,
847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995), or “patently frivolous,”
Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 179 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 455 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Because no “allegation of other facts” could possibly cure the defects of the instant complaint, the
Court will dismiss the case with prejudice. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir.
1996) (per curiam) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring immediate dismissal of
an action that is frivolous or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant). A separate order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/___________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 14, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-04473-UNA Document 5 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2