UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

Nathanael L. Reynolds, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1:16-cv-O0894 v_ ) Assigned To : Unassigned ) Assign. Date ; 5/11/2016 Judge Martelle Morrison el al., ) D€S¢rlptl°n? pro se Gen~ C'V' ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to

5A, which requires the Court to screen and dismiss a pris0ner’s complaint upon a determination that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. See ia’. § l915A(b).

Plaintiff is an inmate at the Charleston County Detention Center in Charleston, South Carolina. He has brought suit against two state judges in South Carolina. Plaintiff complains about their rulings, see Compl. 11 IV, and he seeks $90,000 from each defendant In addition, plaintiff seeks this Court’s intervention.

Judges are absolutely immune from a lawsuit based, as here, on acts taken during the

performance of their official duties. See Mz`rales v. Waco,

, ll-l2 (1991); Thanh Vong Hoai v. Superior Court for Dz'strz`ct of Columbz`a,

(D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Sindram v. Sua'a, 986 F.Zd l459, 1460 (€D.C, Cir. 1993); Smith v. Scalz'a,

(D.D.C. 2014) (examining cases). In addition, this Court generally lacks jurisdiction

to review the decisions of other courts. See Unz`ted States v. Choi,

, 85 l

(D.D.C. 2011) (district courts "generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.") (citing Lewis v. Green,

(D.D.C.l986)). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A

separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: May j ,2()16