COLVIN, I v. RIGSBY et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEON D. COLVIN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02935 (UNA)
)
ANNA BLACKBURNE RIGSBY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its review of Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint
(“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 4, and his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”),
ECF No. 2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it
dismisses this case without prejudice.
Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia and multiple judges from the D.C. Court of Appeals.
See Am. Compl. at 1–3. 	He challenges the appellate judges’ denial of his petition for writ of
mandamus, see id. at 1, 4–13; see In Re Deon D. Colvin, App. No. 24-OA-0016 (D.C. Ct. App.
filed Sept. 9, 2024),1 at Order Denying Writ of Mandamus (filed Sept. 17, 2024); see id. at Order
Denying Petition for Rehearing/Rehearing en banc (filed Oct. 24, 2024), in which he asked the
D.C. Court of Appeals to recuse the D.C. Superior Court judge presiding over his case below, see
Am. Compl. at 4–13; see also Colvin, Deon D. v. 743 Fairmont Street NW LLC, No. 2019-CA-
008113-B (D.C. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 11, 2019). He takes issue with the stated bases and brevity
of the Court of Appeals’ determinations and alleges that the denial of relief was discriminatory
and violated his constitutional rights without explaining how or why beyond his disagreement with
1 A court may take judicial notice of the docket and facts on the public record in other court proceedings. See Covad
Commc'ns Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
Case 1:25-cv-02935-UNA Document 6 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 3

the decisions. 	See Am. Compl. at 4–13. 	He demands damages and an injunction voiding the
orders of the D.C. Court of Appeals. See id. at 8–10, 12–13.
First, Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). 	Federal courts are generally prohibited from reviewing determinations made by local
District of Columbia courts, including the D.C. Court of Appeals. See Richardson v. District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing District of Columbia v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)). The
Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine “bars lower federal courts from considering not only issues
raised and decided in the state courts, but also issues that are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the
issues that were before the state court.” 	Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. 	Insofar as Plaintiff seeks
review of the propriety of the decisions made by the D.C. Court of Appeals, such is not the
province of this Court.
Second, the judicial defendants are immune from suit. Judges are absolutely immune from
suits for money damages for “all actions taken in the judge’s judicial capacity, unless these actions
are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C.
Cir. 1993); see also Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (acknowledging that a long line of
Supreme Court precedents have found that a “judge is immune from a suit for money
damages”); Caldwell v. Kagan, 865 F. Supp. 2d 35, 42 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Judges have absolute
immunity for any actions taken in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.”). And “a judge will not be
deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
excess of his authority. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); see also Mireles, 502 U.S.
at 11 (“[J]udicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice.”). Because the
Case 1:25-cv-02935-UNA Document 6 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 3

actions alleged by Plaintiff were taken in the defendant judges’ official capacities, they are
absolutely immune from suit.
Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time to Serve Complaint, ECF No. 5, is denied as moot. 	A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
Date: December 17, 2025
/s/_________________________
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02935-UNA Document 6 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 3