RICH v. SIMMONS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FRANKIE RICH, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 26-01311 (UNA)
)
)
SARA SIMMONS et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, submitted a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the
complaint.
Plaintiff sues two employees of the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court in their
official and individual capacities for rejecting his submissions under Sup. Ct. Rule 9.1. 	See
Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2-3, 9. 	Plaintiff seeks money damages, a declaratory judgment, and an
injunction “requiring defendants to accept and process” his “petition for writ of certiorari as
personal representative of his deceased wife’s estate, allowing it to be considered by the Justices
of the Supreme Court on its merits.” Id. at 7.
Because the Supreme Court “has inherent supervisory authority over its Clerk,” this Court
lacks jurisdiction to compel the Clerk and the Clerk’s staff to take any action. In re Marin, 956
F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam), quoting Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168 (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.”). Further, “clerks, like judges, are immune from damage suits for performance of
Case 1:26-cv-01311-UNA Document 3 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
tasks,” as alleged here, “that are an integral part of the judicial process.” Sindram v. Suda, 986
F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). And a court “shall” dismiss a case that “seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). 	Therefore,
this case will be dismissed by separate order.
_________/s/______________
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
Date: May 27, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01311-UNA Document 3 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 2