U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2009

Hilska v. Suter

Hilska v. Suter
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 5, 2009
308 F. App'x 451

Counsel

Jouko M. Hilska, pro se.

Hilska v. Suter

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

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 *452for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 30, 2008 be affirmed. 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). Furthermore, clerks enjoy absolute immunity from damages 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) (per curiam), and the district court correctly held that the Attorney General is without authority to dissolve such immunity.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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