WALL v. WINGO et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JESSE WALL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2960 (UNA)
)
JUDGE ELIZABETH WINGO, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), pro se complaint (ECF No. 1, “Compl.”), and response (ECF No. 4)
to the Court’s November 21, 2025, Order (ECF No. 3). The Court GRANTS the application,
GRANTS plaintiff leave to use a Post Office Box as his address of record, and DISMISSES the
complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiff, allegedly “a 43-year-old Gay White African Asian European Native American
Man,” Compl. ¶ 6, declared himself the “lawfully assigned . . . Ambassador of John August Wall
Territory, with diplomatic immunity,” id. ¶ 7; see id. ¶ 55, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, see id. ¶ 14. Nevertheless, plaintiff found himself in
the Superior Court as the respondent to an action which resulted in the issuance of a civil protection
order against him. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 41-42, 49-50. He brings this action against the Associate and
Magistrate Judges presiding over the civil protection case, the former Chief Judge of the Superior
Court, the Assistant Attorney General representing the District of Columbia, and a United States
District Judge, see id. ¶¶ 8-9, alleging all manner of sexual harassment, threats, and retaliation,
see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 9, 39, 42, 49-52, 58, 69, 98-99. Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment, an award
totaling $50 million, an injunction halting further proceedings against him in the Superior Court,
Case 1:25-cv-02960-UNA Document 5 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
dismissal of all charges against him, and the arrest of the individual who filed the petition for a
civil protection order. See id. at 15 (page number designated by CM/ECF).
Of the complaint’s many defects, the Court highlights three. For starters, the defendant
judges are immune from suit. It appears that plaintiff’s claims against them arise from actions
taken in their judicial capacities, and his claim for monetary damages is barred. See Mirales v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (finding that “judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from
ultimate assessment of damages); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 364 (1978) (concluding that
state judge was “immune from damages liability even if his [decision] was in error”); Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967) (“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law
than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial
jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine, in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall.
335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).”).
Likewise, because it appears that actions taken by the Assistant Attorney General also were
taken as, essentially, the prosecutor in the civil protection matter, prosecutorial immunity protects
her from plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages. See Moore v. Motz, 437 F. Supp. 2d 88, 92
(D.D.C. 2006) (citing Imbler v. Patchman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976)).
Insofar as Plaintiff asks this Court to review or reverse the orders of the Superior Court
judges, or otherwise to direct the Superior Court’s actions, this Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.
See Brown v. District of Columbia, No. 23-7129, 2024 WL 1693616, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 18,
2024) (per curiam) (“The district court did not err by dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint sought judicial review of decisions issued by the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.”).
An Order is issued separately.
Case 1:25-cv-02960-UNA Document 5 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
/s/
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
DATE: December 8, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-02960-UNA Document 5 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 3