STRAW v. SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES (2018)

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the corrected brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of mandamus, and the motion for judicial notice, it is

ORDERED that the motion for judicial notice be denied. No motion is required for the court to take judicial notice of official court records, see Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 832 F.2d 601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and the order submitted is not relevant to the disposition of this appeal, see Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 870 (D.C. Cir. 2009). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus be denied. This court lacks the authority to compel the Supreme Court to take any action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court order filed March 26, 2018 be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court or to direct that Court to take any action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d at 340. Moreover, the Supreme Court Clerk and staff enjoy absolute immunity from lawsuits for money damages based upon actions taken as part of the judicial function. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Per Curiam