APOLLO v. DiTORO

Case No. 1:17-cv-00213.

JOSE APOLLO, SR., Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER A. DiTORO, Defendant.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

JOSE APOLLO, SR., Plaintiff, Pro Se.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The Court grants the application and dismisses the complaint with prejudice.

It appears that plaintiff brought a civil action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which was reassigned to defendant Jennifer A. DiToro, an Associate Judge, on or about December 31, 2015. See Compl. at 1, 6. Generally, plaintiff alleges that Judge DiToro violated Superior Court rules, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and rights protected under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the way she scheduled and conducted court hearings and in her ultimate decision to dismiss the case. He demands damages of $2 trillion. Id. at 10.

Judge DiToro enjoys absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts taken in her judicial capacity. 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"); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 226-27 (1988) (discussing "purposes served by judicial immunity from liability in 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)."). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases