Full Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RIFAT SHAFIQUE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-02114 (UNA) ) ) CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL FOR ) THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CIRCUIT et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the complaint. A resident of Washington, D.C., Plaintiff sues the Judicial Council for the District of Columbia Circuit and three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The complaint “focuses specifically on the involvement” of the appellate court judges in rendering decisions and the Council’s alleged condonation of their “wrongful actions[.]” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4; see id. at 3 (“Collateral attacks against fraudulent judgments brought through independent actions are a matter of right.”). Plaintiff seeks to compel recusal of “certain officers of the United States,” the “recall [of] mandates on all affected cases,” and the consolidation and transfer of such cases “to an unconflicted tribunal.” Id. at 1, 2. Section 1361 “is only a source of jurisdiction for district courts to exercise writs of mandamus to employees of the Executive branch.” U.S. v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 84 (D.D.C. 1 2011) (collecting cases). This court otherwise is “without power to entertain” Plaintiff’s “unsubstantial” claims against members of the Judicial branch. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974); see Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 179 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 455 F. App’x. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (claims against “district and court of appeals judges” arising from their official acts are “patently frivolous because federal judges are absolutely immune from [such] lawsuits”) (citations omitted); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (deeming “meritless” an action against “federal judges who have done nothing more than their duty”); see also In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam), quoting Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168 (7th Cir. 1979) (“[I]t seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an action.”). An “in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous . . . if it is clear from the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims asserted.” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Therefore, this case will be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A separate order accompanies this opinion. . _________/s/____________ AMIT P. MEHTA Date: August 12, 2026 United States District Judge 2