LEWIS v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TANGEE LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 4533 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Tangee Lewis’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and motions for leave to use a Post Office box,
ECF No. 3, for emergency relief, ECF Nos. 4, 6, and for a CM/ECF password, ECF No. 5. For
the reasons explained below, the court will grant Ms. Lewis’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and motion to use a Post Office box, dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and deny the
remaining motions as moot.
Ms. Lewis names as defendants the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, and several staff
in the district court’s Clerk’s Office. ECF No. 1, at 1. Her claims arise from the dismissal of her
prior suit, see Lewis v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 25-CV-3588 (D.D.C. Nov. 5, 2025), ECF
Nos. 11, 12, and her subsequent encounters with the staff in the Clerk’s Office, see ECF No. 1,
Case 1:25-cv-04533-UNA Document 10 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 3

2
at 6-7.1 Generally, Ms. Lewis alleges that Clerk’s Office staff refused to answer her questions
about why her suit was dismissed, entered erroneous docket entries, and otherwise failed to assist
her. See ECF No. 1, at 6-7. She alleges that the employees’ actions interfered with her suit, which
sought investigations into the crimes and abuse committed against her and her children. See id.
at 8-10. Ms. Lewis requests that the court “intervene [to] help” her children, allow her original
suit to proceed, and award her $12 trillion in damages. Id. at 10.
As an initial matter, courts and judges are absolutely immune from suits arising from their
official actions. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
355-57 (1978). The court will accordingly dismiss both courts and Judge Nichols from the case.
Absolute judicial immunity also extends to court staff in the performance of “tasks that are
an integral part of the judicial process.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993);
see Jones v. U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 10-CV-910, 2010 WL 2363678, at *1 (D.D.C. June 9, 2010)
(concluding that court staff are immune from suits for damages arising from activities such as the
“receipt and processing of a litigant’s filings”), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. Sup. Ct. of U.S., 405 F.
App’x 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1824 (2011); Thomas v. Wilkins, 61 F.
Supp. 3d 13, 19 (D.D.C. 2014) (dismissing claims against a court employee based on her handling
of court submissions), aff’d, No. 14-5197, 2015 WL 1606933 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 23, 2015). Court
staff are immune even if they err in performing those tasks. Sindram, 986 F.2d at 1461 (holding
that the issuance of an erroneous order barring a litigant from access to the court was an “integral
part[] of the judicial process”). The actions of Clerk’s Office staff that Ms. Lewis challenges are
1 When citing Ms. Lewis’s complaint, ECF No. 1, the court refers to the CM/ECF-generated
numbers at the top of each page rather than any internal pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-04533-UNA Document 10 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 3

3
“part and parcel of the process of adjudicating cases.” Jones, 2010 WL 2363678, at *1. The court
will therefore dismiss the Clerk’s Office defendants as well.2
Accordingly, the court will grant Ms. Lewis’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,
ECF No. 2, and her motion to use a Post Office box, ECF No. 3, dismiss the complaint with
prejudice, ECF No. 1, and deny the remaining motions as moot, ECF Nos. 4, 5. A
contemporaneous order will issue.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 3, 2026
2 Dismissals on the basis of absolute immunity are with prejudice. See Fournerat v. Higgins,
No. 24-CV-2520, 2024 WL 4528973, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 2024).
Case 1:25-cv-04533-UNA Document 10 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 3