Evans v. Suter
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision. The 12 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Palowsky v. Benson (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 2025)
- Abdul Aziz v. Washington (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2023)
- Dupard v. Lopinto (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2020)
- Caldwell v. Garcia (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 2024)
- Kemp v. Powers (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 2024)
- Gordon v. Greene (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2023)
- Favors v. United States Court of Appeals (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)
- Massey v. Harris (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)
- MacTruong v. Abbott (District Court, W.D. Texas 2022)
- Arunachalam v. Harris (District Court, District of Columbia 2021)
- Spann v. Crain (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2020)
- Hilderbrand v. Suter (District Court, District of Columbia 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Evans filed this action against Suter, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, after the Supreme Court denied certiorari and denied a petition for the rehearing of that denial. Evans’s main complaint seems to be Suter’s failure to file one or more additional petitions for rehearing.
Clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks integral to the judicial process. Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 962, 100 S.Ct. 1648, 64 L.Ed.2d 237 (1980)). Upon review of the record, we are satisfied that Appellee was performing appropriate official functions integral to the judicial process. As such, Appellee is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity against the action brought by Appellant. Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s June 29, 2007 Memorandum and Opinion we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.