NIE v. SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HARRY NIE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04367 (UNA)
)
)
REBECCA BEACH SMITH, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 23, 2026, the Court issued an Order, ECF No. 5, directing Plaintiff to, within
30 days, submit his six-month trust fund account statement, id. at 1–2 (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(2)). Plaintiff has since complied with that Order by filing his trust accounting, ECF No.
9, and upon review, the Court grants his pending Application for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2. 	Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Issue an Order to State Farm Correctional
Center, ECF No. 4, to mail his trust accounting to the Clerk, is therefore denied as moot. However,
for the reasons explained below, the Court dismisses this matter without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently designated to the Virginia Department of Corrections
(“VADOC”), has filed a pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and a subsequent Addendum
to the Complaint (“Add.”), ECF No. 10, against a combination of six federal judges from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, and the former director of the VADOC, see Compl. at 1; Add. at 1, 3–4. He alleges that
Defendants committed “fraud upon the court” by affirming his conviction and sentence entered by
the Prince William County Circuit Court. See Compl. at 1–3; Add. at 5. He broadly alleges that
the Eastern District of Virginia acted on time-barred claims, “lost jurisdiction” over his cases, and
Case 1:25-cv-04367-UNA Document 11 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 4

entered void judgments. See Compl. at 1–3. He further alleges that he “is being held illegally by”
VADOC,” that he has received inadequate medical treatment for several conditions, and that he is
being unfairly withheld from his family and from earning a living, all of which violates his civil
rights and other federal and state laws. 	See id. at 3; Add. at 4. 	He demands $700 million in
damages. See Add. at 4–5.
First, to the extent that Plaintiff challenges the legality of his detention, he must seek habeas
corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and he may not do so here. “A district court may not entertain
a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its
territorial jurisdiction.” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see
also Day v. Trump, 860 F.3d 686, 691 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal for want of jurisdiction
where the District of Columbia was not “the district of residence of [plaintiff’s] immediate
custodian for purposes of § 2241 habeas relief”). 	Plaintiff’s present custodian is located in
Virginia, not in this District.
Second, insofar as Plaintiff challenges the legitimacy of his conviction or sentence, federal
court review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the exhaustion of
available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Thereafter, “an application for a writ of habeas
corpus [ ] made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court . . . may
be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court
for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [plaintiff] and
each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application.” 	28
U.S.C. § 2241(d). Plaintiff faced criminal proceedings in Virginia; therefore this Court also lacks
jurisdiction over any intended § 2254 claims.
Third, with respect for Plaintiff’s demand for damages, the Supreme Court instructs:
Case 1:25-cv-04367-UNA Document 11 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 4

[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness 	would render a conviction 	or sentence
invalid . . . plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence
has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). 	Here, if judgment were to be granted in
Plaintiff’s favor in this case, it “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.” Heck,
512 U.S. at 487. 	Therefore, because there is no indication that any verdict has been set aside,
Plaintiff cannot recover damages for the actions of those who allegedly brought about and
sustained his conviction and sentence. See Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
(per curiam).
Fourth, the Defendant judges are absolutely immune from this lawsuit. See Sindram v.
Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991); see
also 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.”). They also cannot be deprived of
such immunity because actions they took were allegedly in error, malicious, or was in excess of
their 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.”).
Finally, to that degree that Plaintiff seeks damages due to the alleged mistreatment at
VADOC facilities, venue is improper in this District. Venue in a civil action is proper only in (1)
the district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the
district is located, (2) in a district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
to the claim occurred (or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is
situated), or (3) in a district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which
Case 1:25-cv-04367-UNA Document 11 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 4

the action may otherwise be brought. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Here, all of the Defendants are located in Virginia, including Plaintiff’s present custodian, and all
of the alleged wrongdoing also took place there. As pleaded, this case presents no connection to
the District of Columbia.
For all of the stated reasons, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: 	April 27, 2026 	___________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-04367-UNA Document 11 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 4