U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2006

Sanders v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 2, 2006 · Ginsburg, Randolph, Rogers

184 F. App'x 13

Counsel

Henry T. Sanders, Landover, MD, pro se., R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Appellate, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellees.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Doe v. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (District Court, District of Columbia 2025)
Soto Santini v. Arias Marxuach (District Court, District of Columbia 2023)
Klayman v. Rao (District Court, District of Columbia 2021)
Yan-Xu Lu v. Allison Eid (D.C. Cir. 2021)
Patterson v. Harris (District Court, District of Columbia 2019)
Liviz v. Howard (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2019)
McNeil v. Brown (District Court, District of Columbia 2018)
Sibley v. U.S. Supreme Court (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Sibley v. United States Supreme Court (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Jones v. United States Supreme Court (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
Jones v. Supreme Court of the United States (D.C. Cir. 2010)

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, the supplement thereto; and the appendix, and the supplements thereto, filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed June 9, 2005, and March 29, 2006, be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (providing for Supreme Court review, by way of writ of certiorari, of decisions of circuit courts of appeals). Furthermore, judges and court clerks “are immune from damage suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.” See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C.Cir. 1993).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.