In a recent ruling, the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit filed by Roman Perales against Scott Harris, the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to compel the Clerk's office to accept Perales' filings. This decision impacts individuals who seek to challenge administrative decisions at the Supreme Court level and highlights the procedural requirements necessary for legal filings.
Perales, a Texas resident, attempted to file a petition for a writ of certiorari after the Supreme Court of Texas denied his request for admission to the state bar. He argued that the Clerk's office improperly rejected his filings, which included an emergency motion. However, the court found that it could not intervene in the actions of the Supreme Court Clerk.
Background
The case, titled Roman Perales v. Scott S. Harris, was filed on May 29, 2026, under Civil Action No. 2025-2032. Perales represented himself in the lawsuit, a situation known as pro se representation. His legal troubles began when he sought to be admitted to the Texas state bar, only to have his request denied by the Supreme Court of Texas on November 17, 2023. Following this denial, Perales attempted to escalate the issue to the United States Supreme Court by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari.
However, the Clerk's office at the Supreme Court rejected his petition, stating that it did not comply with the court’s rules. Perales argued that the rejection constituted misconduct and subsequently filed an emergency motion, which was also dismissed for not meeting the necessary requirements. Frustrated with the process, Perales turned to the District Court, seeking an order to compel the Clerk's office to accept his filings.
The defendants in this case, Scott Harris and a case manager from the Clerk’s office, moved to dismiss Perales' complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. They contended that Perales had improperly served the defendants and that the court had no authority to compel the actions of the Supreme Court Clerk.
The Ruling
The District Court, presided over by Judge Jia M. Cobb, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Perales' claims against the defendants. Judge Cobb stated, "It is the right and duty of the Supreme Court to correct the irregularities of its officer and compel him to perform his duty... neither a district court nor a circuit court of appeals has jurisdiction to interfere with it by mandamus or otherwise." This ruling reinforces the principle that lower courts cannot compel the actions of the Supreme Court or its officers.
The court also noted that Perales had failed to properly serve the defendants, as he had personally delivered the summons and complaint, which is against the rules of civil procedure. The court found that allowing Perales to rectify the service issue would be futile since the case lacked jurisdiction. The ruling concluded with the dismissal of Perales' complaint, denying his motions for an extension of time to serve and to file a surreply.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking to file petitions with the Supreme Court. It underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules when filing legal documents. The court's decision clarifies that individuals cannot seek to compel the Supreme Court Clerk's office to accept filings through lower courts. This ruling may deter similar lawsuits in the future and emphasizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over its administrative processes.
Furthermore, the case highlights the challenges faced by pro se litigants, who may struggle with the complexities of legal procedures. The court's dismissal of Perales' claims illustrates the potential pitfalls of navigating the judicial system without legal representation. This case may serve as a cautionary tale for others considering similar legal actions against high courts.
What's Next
Perales may have the option to appeal the District Court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There is no indication of a related case pending at this time. The outcome of this case could influence how future claims against the Supreme Court's administrative actions are handled, especially for individuals representing themselves.