United States District Court, D. Maryland
August 2, 2017, plaintiff Thomas Kevin Jenkins filed this
self-represented action captioned as a "Federal Tort
Claim" in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking compensatory, nominal and
punitive damages totaling $1, 500, 000.00.  The case was ordered
transferred to this court on September 6, 2017, and received
by the Clerk on October 5, 2017. Jenkins' motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted. The
complain,, however, is summarily dismissed.
forma pauperis statute authorizes a district court to dismiss
a case if satisfied that the action fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, is frivolous or malicious, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. &e28U.S.C. S 1915(e)(2)(B). Because
Jenkins is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court must
conduct a sua sponte screening of his complain.. It must
dismiss any part of the action which is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from
complains that the "prompt and impartial administration
of justice" has been hindered in his pending federal
criminal case of United States v. Jenkins, Criminal
No. TDC-15-492 (D. Md.). He primarily takes issue with the
denial of his request to represent himself, his numerous
pro se motions being "overlooked" by
presiding Judge Theodore D. Chuang, and the ordering of
competency examination.. ECF No.l.
claims are subject to dismissal as filed against United
States District Court Judge Chuang who is entitled to
absolute immunity. It is well-established that judges, in
exercising the authority vested in them, are absolutely
immune from civil lawsuits for money damages. See Mireles
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991) (per curiam) ("A
long line of this Court's precedents acknowledges that,
generally, a judge is immune from a suit for money
damages."); Chu v. Griffith, 771 F.2d 79, 81
(4th Cir. 1985);see also Mandel v. O'Hara,
320Md. 103, 107, 576 S.2d 766, 768 (1990)
("Absolute 'immunity protects ... judges ... so long
as their acts are "judicial" ... in nature and
within the very general scope of their jurisdiction'
"). Judicial immunity applies to judicial action taken
in error, done maliciously, or in excess of authority.
See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978).
Essentially, a judge is entitled to absolute immunity ifthe
judge acted in his judicial capacity and had jurisdiction
over the subject matter. See King v. Myers, 973 F.2d
354, 356-57 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, a plaintiff
alleging a claim for money damages against a judge can
overcome absolute judicial immunity only by showing (1) the
judgess actions were taken outside of the judges judicial
capacity or (2) the judge acted in the complete absence of
jurisdiction. Id. Jenkins has not made such a
the complaint for damages may not proceed against prosecutor
Baldwin. A prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer who enjoys
absolute immunity when performing prosecutorial functions.
See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976);
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343 (2009);
Springmen v. Williams, 122 F.3d 211, 212133 (4th
Cir. 1997); Lyles v. Sparks, 79 F.3d 372, 376-77
(4th Cir. 1996). General decisions whether or not to
prosecute a case fall within that parameter.
Jenkins' prisoner case fails to state a claim and is
premised on an "indisputably meritless legal theory,
" his case shall be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S
1915(e). He is hereby notified that he may be
barred from filing future suits in forma pauperis if he
continues to file federal civil rights actions that are
subject to dismissal under S 1915(e) or Rule 12(b)(6).
This constitutes the first S 1915(e) strike to be assessed
against Jenkins. A separate order follows.
 According to the Bureau of
Prisons inmate locator website, Jenkins is currently confined
the Federal Medical Center at Butner, P. O. Box 1600, Butner,
North Carolina 27509.
 28 U.S.C. S 1915(e)(2) states
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss
the case at any time if the court determines that-
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue;
(B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such ...