U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2004

Jordan v. Suter

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 7, 2004 · Edwards, Ginsburg, Randolph

116 F. App'x 288

Counsel

Curtis Jordan, Leesburg, GA, pro se.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Gwen v. Jimenez (District Court, District of Columbia 2026)
Bent v. Unnamed Capitol Police One (District Court, District of Columbia 2019)

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 of the Court

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 22, 2004 be affirmed. The lower courts have no supervisory authority over the Supreme Court or its employees. See, e.g., Marin v. Suter, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Moreover, appellant’s damages claims against the Supreme Court defen*289dants are barred by immunity. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C.Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Finally, his damages claims against the Library of Congress are barred by sovereign immunity. See Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 103 n. 31 (D.C.Cir. 1984); 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.