Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
John Alfred REGALADO, Appellant v. Donald J. TRUMP, President, In his individual and official capacity, et al., Appellees
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the motion “to abolish all civil rights allegations as well as court motions against Micheal Terry Gordy,” it is
ORDERED that the motion be denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s April 17, 2019 order be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that, insofar as appellant sought monetary damages against United States officials in their official capacity, those parties are entitled to sovereign immunity unless that immunity is waived by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (“FTCA”). See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475-76, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). The district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to demonstrate that he had satisfied the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement before filing his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993). The court also correctly concluded that the FTCA does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity for constitutional tort claims, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 476-79, 114 S.Ct. 996.
Insofar as appellant sought damages against federal judges and judicial officers, the district court correctly concluded that those parties are entitled to absolute immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity. See, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Finally, the district court correctly concluded that appellant’s complaint, which broadly alleged that high-ranking state and federal officials are complicit in various acts of organized crime and corruption, failed to state a claim for relief that was plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-5171
Decided: September 17, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)