PERRY v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (2020)

JUDGMENT

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 April 22, 2019, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). The district court correctly held that appellees are entitled to judicial immunity from appellant's claims for damages. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12-13, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Moreover, appellant has not offered any challenge to the district court's conclusion that equitable relief is not available in this case. See Richards v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 525, 531 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“The general rule is that injunctive relief will not issue when an adequate remedy at law exists.”); Hill v. Traxler, 550 F. App'x 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding that “appellate and post-judgment review of his conviction provided an adequate remedy at law” for prisoner's claims for equitable relief against federal judges).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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