UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REVEREND DOCTOR BECK, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-3659 (UNA)
WILLIAM PELHAM BARR, et al., )
The plaintiff alleges that, between January 1, 1994, and October 15, 2015, while
incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility - Stillwater, Compl. (ECF No. 1-1) at 5 (page
numbers designated by CM/ECF), he “suffered immense physical and mental tortures” because
the defendants denied medical treatment for an injury to his right testicle, see
id. (ECF No. 1)
6, 7, ultimately “result[ing] in his involuntary sterilization,”
id. at 7.
He brings this action
against the Attorney General of the United States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States, various federal judges and prosecutors, an official of the State of Minnesota, and
an attorney, see
id. at 3,
for alleged violations of rights protected under the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
, id. at 5.
review of Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Exhaustion,” (ECF No. 4), the plaintiff also brings this action
under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He demands damages totaling $2,800.000. See
id. at 7.
The Court concludes that the plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Chief
Justice Roberts and the other federal judges must be dismissed because these defendants are
absolutely immune from suit. See Mirales v. Waco,
502 U.S. 9
(1991) (finding that “judicial
immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages); Stump v.
435 U.S. 349
, 364 (1978) (concluding that state judge was “immune from damages
liability even if his [decision] was in error”); Pierson v. Ray,
386 U.S. 547
, 553-54 (1967) (“Few
doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from
liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court
recognized when it adopted the doctrine, in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,
20 L. Ed. 646
(1872).”); see also Forrester v. White,
484 U.S. 219
, 226-27 (1988) (discussing “purposes served
by judicial immunity from liability in damages”). Similarly, the federal prosecutor defendants
are immune from a suit for damages. See Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409
, 427 (1976).
Assuming without deciding that the plaintiff raises a viable claim under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, the Court concludes that it may not proceed properly in this district. See 28 U.S.C. §
1402(b) (stating that a “tort claim against the United States . . . may be prosecuted only in the
judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of
occurred”). Nor is this district the proper venue for adjudication of any claim against the
Minnesota defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (designating proper venue as the location where
defendants are or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred).
The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.
DATE: December 30, 2020 /s/
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge