# Petition — Panko v. Rodak > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_1490%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1980 - **Citation:** 444 U.S. 1081 ## Text In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1979 ~ €9-1034 - GRECORY PANKO, Petitioner MICHAEL RODAK, JR., Individually and as Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, EDWARD C. SCHADE, Individually and as an Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United St-tes, Resvondents Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to tre United States Court of Appeais for the Seventh Circuit Gregory Panko 1352 North Bell Ave, Chicago, I11. 60622 = TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions Beloweccccvicsvccvcesccss 2 POPTARAOEINE £6 bs ccbbRiabbccadeccs 2 Questions Precsented...-coocceccoce 2 Constitutional and Statutory Provi- : Ssicns ee | EE eae e226 | 3 Ae ara Reasons for Granting the Writesse. 10 CUMING a a 65 heb bs bees ckscecier 17 Appendix A Constitutional mand Statutory Provisions Appendix B; Copies of Orders and Opinions of Courts i Table of Cases i Yv. Callaway, 423 U.S. 8B8 [ me ctr: PP EECT TO OCKCeSE Ere Seo eLOC eee 26n5e60 Be : 9, 11, 12; 14, 15, 16, 17 Carter v. Seamans, 411 F, 2d 767, 773 5 Cires 19 Devvesccsevossers 15 | | ee /t 7 Page "Ag (ea —_ MAT yh Sc cry BR nH othe ; ep tee eee dey ous se sat a ee | Veta leg VAos £91 .3166660.0480080608 10 elation ve Honderson, 492 F, 2a LZSo0 ui Cakes EFJFiscésenccsace 10 , jWdwestern Developments, Ince ve si "Gar of $alea. OL Ben ar gio Fe 2a 53 (10° Cir,» 4 Z)ecosrtovces . 10, ae Panko ve County of Cook. Illinois, 4 Tll. App. Ct. No. 601941 .1976).. 4, 6° Penko v, Donozan, 415 US. 953 LL IPE CORPO K CODEC OEEC ORO CeCeS Ponke v. Tarlieres 7th Cir, Cts of Ap;reais HO. 75°1726. (1976). c0eee 4 Fob’ chand vy. Ronan, 351 F. 2d 533 | - -_ =e 2 Cristo, 4 Didesasessceedeatace 1i ; All State Aécministrators, : j ? (197% a 3 : TON CHEN O POZO Ce DHODDCGe- ¥ 312 7134, 16 Sicpueon ve Drew, 359 F. Supp, 746 —-—_ «a eo ee ee ee ee . (Fo D- jf 0? 197 Peketatésedan® occ 10 Us Sov. Bell. 127 F, 1002; 1003 “EoD. Paes 1904); affta 135 F, 336 (3 Cire, 1905) ereseccccossecreeny , | te ’ «a eee ce ca ig vt ne %. es ss 2 * é 7 + 7 > 4 ’ . sis = e . . e *. i ° 2 we ee a ~~ ey TT? senders di ~~", i adie na J ~ a. > , : o ey oe ae @ascaBervge #2 eter evee-., ‘i «6 « ; ¢ “o % . = . Ange a a ° aie TRIG oe. tase *» weg Se Eh i My 25 ames ae ; © patents 7D. wai" 4 oe. ae 9 e ie ©ewreeee ee . @ ° 114 Table of Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Constitution of the United States, Amendment hbb64h0000460046 0 De Page « 55 72 8 28 UsSaCes Section Pibk660060500600% oii 28 7 Section 1254 1) Spee 2 28 UeSeCo, Section hs errr rer 3» 4 28 U.S. 2° Section La3Zevcccscececes 3+ 4 2B WeBeGa, Section 1361escesccccede Me UsSe Supreme Court Rule 13 (2)eseeee3s U.Se Supreme Court Rule 21 (3)seecceed, UeS, Supreme Court Rule 39ececcecece COR CHS Cee eKereceseseseezeon dy 4, Se 15. U.S. Supreme Court Rule 53 6) a, 2 Table of Other References 14 CoJeS,, Clerks of Courts, Section Aled ee eek ae 55 CoJeSe, Mandamus, Section 69 (d).. 67 C.JeSe,y Officers, Section 112se.es« 14 ii 11 16 12 10 14 10 Wie ct - SUPREME GC QURT OF THE ena | UNITED STATES : . “. se @ s* eee vw at « e+e “*#@e@e8e ww 6 October Term, 1979 ec 63,25 25 bs NO, ) , @ 0 eC ot agiv ° io 5 ne ba RO CEG clas 90 ak ed” OF Sig ve .. ee it tu GREGORY PANKO, Petitioner _ | MICHAEL RODAK, JR., Individually «nd as) ye em 0 3 MIG Suu) Clerk of the Supreme. Court of the United | | | ntti nnie a, ea ee Pi ROA Eee ae diiidaces: uae Nise , EDJARD C. SCHADE, Individually. and as-an_.- . ay ce tigers ka a2 a letter believing that the document did not. comply with Supreme Court Rule 39 governing the printing. Petitioner alleged in his complaint with respect to this action that the letters were vague and ambiguous contrary | 5 to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in not saying exactly in what way the respondents believed the docu- ments did not comply with Rule 39, i.e. whether the margins were too large or too small, whether the print size was too large or too small, or whether only the appendix. portions were invol- ved. Nothing whatsoever was indicated in either letter of the need for an in forma pauperis motion in order for the resvondents to accept the documents as they were submitted. From an..examination of copies of documents of other cases enclosed by respondent. Edward C. Schade, as well as research which the petitioner had done, it appeared that the respondents wanted the data on attached folded sheets of about letter size con- tained in Appendices B and C of the peti- , tion consisting of reproduced copies of —— the complaint. court opinions, and court or- ders ‘some of which wore reduced in print size) and Appendices C and D of the juris~. dictional statement consisting of repro-. duced copies of court orders and the notice of ‘appeal (some of which were reduced in print size) printed in the same format as the main text. (References to some of the appendix data being reduced in print. size. in the complaint were parenthetical and were not intended to indicate that this was the controlling reason as to why the documents were not filed. It appeared that. respon- - dents did not wish to: file the documents with some of the appendix data reproduced on attached folded sheets of about letter size.) Petitioner resubmitted the 39 copies of the petition and. jugiealgt ion statement res- pectively accompayigd by icovdring letters and motions to dispense with printing of | 6 -. Bae 7 rte eer sme am portionsiof the appendices, which motions ~ 7 he wanted respondent. Edward Cy-Suhade -to--- —-. *present.to-the justices:‘of this Court. In the covering letters and in the motions 2 petitioner indicated that legible. type~- — written or otherwise reproduced copies *_ of nonprinted: court opinions. may be sub- mitted: with respect: to a vetition withouc °”” the ‘data: being. printed in. the. same. format - ds'the main text citing Calley v.. Callaway, -—.. 423 UaS.-888 (1975), wherein this- Court had erated d-notion-to dispense with pr nting” *- of portions of the appendix of a petition ° Tor a Writ of wertiorari., In his cev- | _ vring Lecter and motion.with respect to the jurisdictional.statement petitioner indicated that~this could likewise be applied to —— wonprinved orders and the notice of apnveal . with resfPect to-.a-jurisdictional statement. _ He also indicated that a jurisdictional. ~ -° statement with.respect to an appeal, Pankd — Ve DonBVart, 415 UsSa. 953 (1974), with similar attac ments had been previously accepted, -~ _ In his’ motion of December 13, 1976, with ~' respect ‘to the petition for awrit,of . - certiorari petitioner also: indicated he was | in the process of preparing a petition for~ leave ‘to: appeal to the Supreme Court.of © __ Tllitois: from the Appellate Court of Illi- — nois ‘regarding ‘the case Panko v. County of * Cook, Ellinois, supra, the time for filing havin been-extended :from December 1, 1976, to January 5, 1977. (Petitioner was granted leave 'to' file the -said petition instanter by the Supreme Court of Illinois later,in January 1977 during its January Term, )‘- (The parcel which contained. the motion of December 13, 1976, was not. claimed. by anyone of respondents’. office during a period of — more than 30 days after a delivery attempt Was made on December 18, 1976, with a PRCT Me, pare J ie y notice then left and was returned in Jan- uary 1977 to Chicago, Illinois and held at a postal station. On February it was resubmitted to respondents* office without being opened and was received there on Feb= ruary 18, 1977) In his complaint petitioner alleged that instead of submitting the motions to this Court in accordance with the directive of Snider v. All State Administrators, Inc., 4i4 U.S. Sy (1974), respondent Edward - C. Schade incorrectly returned the 39 copies” in each case without. any covering letter - rt whatsoever contrary to the 5th Amendment of _. the Constitution of the United States and the directive of Snider thus incorrectly denying petitioner due process and equal | protection of law and engaging in misfea- sance of office. Later, respondent Edward C. Schade or a designee returned docket fee checks with respect to both the peti- tion and jurisdictional statement. . In addition, petitioner resubmitted the 39 copies of-his petition after their second re urn by respondent Edward C. Schade along with a motion to dispense with printing of portions of the appendix and a covering letter addressed to the Circuit Justice, John Paul Stevens, asking that the said Justice or the Court grant the motion and that respondents* office be directed to properly docketithe petition that peti- tioner might have due process of lane [Mn his complaint petitioner alleged that rés- pondent Edward C. Schade returned all ef the transmitted items including the letter addressed to the Circuit Justice without any lietter of explanation whatsoever & Bs tay es 8 = contrary to Amendment 5 of the Constitu- tion of the United States. AS Petitioner asked tn his complaint that & mandamus issue directing respondents to docket his petition and jurisdictional statement or, in the alternative, to submit _ the respective motions to dispense with printing of portions of the apvendices to ‘the justices of this Court for determin- - abion. . Fhe. petitioner also asked that res-= 5 rondents pay the petititener for.misfeas- ance and the. incorrect deprivation of peti-~ - tioner's rights of due process and equal vrotection of law.provided: by the 5th:Amend= ment of the Constitution of Lin thee Ot and resubmission postal: ezpenses plus court. costs, On February 10, 1978, counsel for the respondents filed a motion to dismiss and _ on +Februery 17, 1978, filed a-memorandum in supwort of the said motian to: dismiss wherein it was alleged that réspondents-were -immune “from monetary liability with respect to the instant case and‘that mandamus did not die in the District Court with respect to the respondents... On. March 24, 1978; peti- -. tioner filed with leave of the District Court a reply to the said motion to dismiss snd memorandum in suprort thereof wherein he alleged that respondents were not: immune from ‘. ‘monetary liability with respect to the instant ‘Case and-that mandamus did lie in the District -Court with respect to the respondents for ‘performance of ministerial duties, On ril 14, 1978, counsel for the respondents Aled a revly memorandum to petitioner's ply of Merch 24, 1978, and on April 25, » with leave of the District: Court peti- Aoner filed a response to the reply. - + ee me tae lei tie nee Aatier eee 9 memorandum of April 14, 1978, of counsel for the resvondents. On July 5, 1978, an order was entered in the District Court with an accompanying _ memorandum dismissing the case in its enti- rety pursuant to defendants’ motion. The Court was of the opinion that judicial or quasi-judicial immunity extended to the respondents in the exercise of discretionary authority, and thet there was nov a ciear, ministerial, and nondiscretionary duty on respondents! behalf without an in fo-ma pauperis showing by petitioner. On Septen- ber 5, 1978, the petitioner filed a notice } of apveal in the District Court with respect — to the order of July 5, 1978. Briefs were submitted by the petitioner ~ and counsel fér the respondents in the 7th —- Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 1, ~ 1979, the Court of Appeals issued an order and an opinion affirming the order of the District Court. The Court of Appeals was of the opinion that respondents were perfor# ming judicial.or quasi-judicial functions within their authority and had judicial immunity, and that thére was not a plain —. duty on the part of the respondents to file - any of petitioner's papers without an'in. ~~. forma youperis showing by petitioner. It“: also held that this Court*’s ruling in Calley Ve Callavay, supra, applied to that case alonese . 10 11 authority by the constant fear of REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT personal liability for damages, ... | | | Ke ; Reporters ‘are like clerks in that. | " their duties are ministerial in nature. I. THE COURT OF APPEALS IN HOLDING THAT ~ | pee chin ctor are not protected by . RESPONDENTS WERE PERFORMING JUDICIAL OR quasi-judicial immunity." STERTAL Ponies FUNCTIONS INSTEAD OF MINI- : . VCTIONS AND HAD IMMUNITY HAS DECI=. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in. ... DED QUESTIONS OF LAW IN CONFLICT WITH DECI- affirming an order of a district court held SIONS OF OTHER COURTS OF APPEAL. —_—— — atm Where a duty is a definite one not uthority to fule upon the character or involving the exercise of judgment, impo- : sustnae ot cabsess Crondavee him to -be filed,. sed by law arising under conditions: admitted and failure tb issue process toa party —— ate Tee Oe eee te 18 & ministerial entitled to'-it may result in -the clerk's -- duty (67 C.J.S., Officers, Section 112).. liability for loss to thet party (U alee es 4 4 court clerk is a ministerial officer and 11, 127 F.e 1002, 1003 {£ , (Me ancaben, ory, segue Judicial powers .. : - 4 135 F. 336 (3 Circ, 1905)). The title Tilses Okiahome, HOP SE os UO te of an‘office, quasi-judicial or even judicial, 1963)). mone ee ot Cire. does not of itself immunize the officer _ - 3). if a clerk of a court fails or refu- for unlawful. acts which cannot be said to . Sés. to perform a ministerial duty imvosed constitute ar integral part of judicial: .— on him by law resulting in injury to another, process (Robichaud v , 351 Fe ag er page) is liable in damages. to the injured 533 (9 Cire, iseayy “Clerks of courts : rr perry, (it Sedade, Clerks Of Courts, Section are, therefore, not absolutely immune from’. - 3" Cie ToRr ee 492 Fe 24 1298 — liability for damages resulting from we a Tg igh Fea eee el Se actions taken by.them in thepberformance __ UDPDe 746 (E.D. Vac» 1 7 ; McGhee v, Mo er, of their responsibilities. , oad “a ates 60 FR:Ds 578 (WeDs Vass 1973])« Th WoLallen ne” Ze eEngerson, the ircuit. Court of. Appeals | ‘provides ‘that °-"~ held that court clerks did not have judicial nine 2 a ypeeee igre cg lie the ia quasi-judicial immunity as follows:° * powers. and. perform the duties assigned CG , > e courts - Ue. Se | “IG ourt functionaries such as clerks Sune Court Biles 21 (3) and 13 (2) pro-!~ are not clothed in judicial immunity. — : vide for docketing a petition for a writ of .- be ar eee ae ministerial, certiorari or docketing an appeal respec- = -.. pakttek ludiciar saa ee ae } ; tively upon the submission of 40 copies of _ =. srehted to tanrsekrdicl LeU 3 the respective petition or jurisdictional we geneec en Sets enene ? statement with proof of service and payment who, like judges, must not be unduly inhibited to exercise discretionary of the docket fee by a petitioner or appel-_— lant dr tespective counsel. In Calley ve — ; 12 Callaway, supra, this Court in eranting a motion to dispense with vrinting of por- tions of the apvendix to a petition for a writ of certiorari held that legible typewritten or otherwise reproduced copies of non-printed court opinions may be submitted with respect to a petition for a writ of certiorari without the data being printed in the same format as the main text without specifying an in forma PaEeatinee requirement. This could likewise be applied to nonprinted orders and the notice of appeal with respect to a jurisdictional statement. There was nothing from the respondents accompanying the returned copies of the documents prior to the filing of this action to indicate that an in forma pauperis motion was required by the respondents. Therefore, -..-.. it can be assumed that this was not ‘in: point as to why respondents did not wish‘to file petitioner’s documents, Where an in forma pauperis showing is actually required in this Court, Ue. Se Supreme Court Rule 53 (5) does not authorize the €lerk to reject any motion. as to content for failure to contain an adequate in forma pauveris showing. It « is rather discretionary with the justices of the Court as to whether or not to grant an in forma pauperis motion whose format is physically all right. | In Snider v. All State Administrators, Ince, .supra, this Court specified that the Clerk will be instructed to submit a motion to dispense with printing to the Court for decision. The Clerk was not authorized to pass upon the motion or to return the motion: dnd the document on his own without Submission to the Court but was clearly directed to submit the motion to the Court for decision. Respondents, thereiore, had 13 nondiscretionary, ministerial duties ree, petitioner's documents or to submit the motions to the Court for determination. . THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS x HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NOT A PLAIN DUTY ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS TO FILE ANY OF PETITIONER'S PAPERS CONFLICTS WITH A DECI~ SION OF THIS COURTs--..-—- | Court of Appeals in-denying san- dawut seit held: incorrectly that there 7 was not a plain’ duty: onthe part of al ye dents to file any of petiticner s agree that petitioner did not have a clear r g . to have his. motions to haere wee ommatted ting [of portions of the appendices} su to this Court.. This is, in conflict with this Court's ruling in Snider v. All State dministrators, Inc., supra, wherein ee " Court held that the Clerk will be instructe “ae to submit a motion to dispense with .prin- . ae ting to the Court for decision. This Court) | did not authorize the Clerk's Office to determine whether or not sucha motion was sufficient on to return the document in : question and the motion at its discretion. iG ider this Court held thet it had the tt a to waive the application a all ticular rules in appropriate pi roupesen ces, Petitioner's situation as to. a " question of jn forma pau eris is dis 7 guishable from that of Snider. In Sn der the petitioner there. had peald the docke fee but sought to dispense completely | - with printing of his petition for writ o certiorari and té submit only one bye written copye As previously nage the petitioner of this case subm! oe oS ae | | 14 copies of his, petition and jurisdictional Statement accompanied by docket fee checks and wished to dispense only with printing of portions of the appendices, This Court had previously granted a motion to dispense with printing of portions of the appendix with respvect to a petition for a writ of certiorari in aad Ve Callavay, supra, without indicating in its order the need for an in forma pauperis statement, Therefore, resrondents had Plain, nondis~ cretionary duties to file petitioner's documents or to submit the motions to the Court for determination. Petitioner had e Clear right to have his documents filed or to have his motions to dispense with prin- ting of portions of the anvendices submitted to this Court for determination, Prior to the commencement of this action petitioner attempted to administratively resolve~- the difficulties throught correspondence, There did not appear to be the availability 6f another adequate legal remedy for peti- tioner to try to have his documents filed as they were submitted to respondents? office. 28 U.S.C., Section 1361 provides that. the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Plaintiff, — Mandamus may issue-to compel a clerk of a- court to perform Some ministerial duty which he improperly refuses to perform, Such as, filing of tou (Oe Gath delivered to him on tender of fees 55 CetdeSey = damus, Section 69 (d)), Petitioner bas a clear right to the relief sought by man- damus in this action, The three elements applicable to the issuance of a mandamus, - namely, (1) a clear right in the plaintiff 15 ‘te the relief sought, (2) a clear duty on he part of the defendant to do the act in soneeank: and (3) the unavailability of ano- h dequate remedy in law (Carter v pip gg F. 24 767, 773 (5 Cire, 1969) +- Holmes Ve oe States Bd of Parole, 541 F. 2a 12 36 1247 (7 Cire, 1976 al exist with respect to this action. Mandamus, therefore, lies in a United States District Court to compel the Clerk and an Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States to verform ministerial duties owing to the petitioner, ? 7 ta . THE QUESTIQN OF WHETHER THIS COURT HOLDING TN GALLEY V_ CALLAWAY, 423 U.S. 888, APPLIES ALSO TO OTHER CASES IS 4 QUES+ TION WHICH SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THIS COURT, Court.of Appeals in its opinion on this case held that the order in Calley ve Callaway, supra, granting leave to dispense with printing of portions of the appendix to a petition for a writ of cer- tiorari applied to that case alone, © In Calley this Court in granting the motion did not limit the application to that case alone but by stating in detail without an in f stipulation in the rd itsett that porte. e typewritten or otherwise reproduced copies of nomprinted court fl opinions may be submitted with respect a petition fora writ of certiorari indi- cated the possibility of application also . to other cases. The application to other cases would not nullify the requirements of Rule 39 (1) for all cases regarding appendix material. Separate volume 16 appendices accompanying briefs on the merits would still be subject to Rule 39. Copies. of court orders. and nonprinted court opinions on other-size sheets than the main text pages could be submitted as attachments with res- pect to a petition fora writ of certiorari or be submitted Separately bound me cme nt ae upon circumstances. ee 2. It is not the case, as méntioned in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, that "fpetitioner's] attempt to rely on a state court ‘deadline’ in the motion relating to the petition for, Ta writ of] certiorari had no merit because the ‘deadline’ was passed before the [respondents] received the motion and thus could not excuse the failure to comply with Rule 39." It is not controlling when the resnondents recei- a ved the motion. The motion was submitted on = December 13, 1976, before petitioner comple- -. ted his petition for leave to appeal''to © the Supreme Court of Illinois regarding another case, which petition he was gran- ted leave to file by the Supreme Court of Illinois in January 1977. It is not the case, ~.-. as mentioned in the opinion, “[ajnd the statement in the motion relating to the juris- dictional statement that similar documents hed been accepted tn an earlier case wes irrele-~ vant since from the docket number assigned to the earlier case, those. documents appear to have been accepted before the Court's warning in Snider was issued." Following its ruling in Snider Ve ts oy pol strators, Inc,» SUDIrA, s Co n Calley v. Culiaway, supra, grented a motion to dispense with printing of sad ar te: of the appendix, 17 The question of whether this Court's holding in Calley applies also to other cases with or without a motion is a ques-~ tion which should be settled by this Court. CONCLUSION The question of whether the duties of respondents to file papers generally are mini- sterial in nature is a question of law which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has decided with respect to this case in conflict with decisions of other courts of appeal, and the question of whether there was a plain duty on the part of res- pondents to file any of petitioner's papers is a question of law which the United States Court of Apveals for the Seventh Circuit has decided in conflict with a decision of this court. The question of whether this court's holding in Calley v. Callaway, sunvra, applies also to other cases is a question which should be settled by this court. This case directly involves some of the proce- dures and rulings of this court. For the reasons which have been set forth, certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, Gregory Panko 1352 North Bell Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60622 ee ee “. ATI nn a ° — APPENDIX A Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Pr t aa i 4 Al Appendix A Constitutional and Statutory Provisions ~~ ; titut on of the United States, Amendment 3 tn part: fos ~ -eeenoF shall ony person -e@+ be Aaenrived of life.- ‘Liberty, om pacpe it A “wi Shout due precess of law: .>,. 28 U.S Se Can Section” 356%. ass « a i. a Aa The clerk: of each court .and his dep-=- uties and assistsnts shaii. ercreise p the pewers anc perform ine duties assigned to them by the ccurt. . 28 U.S The motion to dispense with printing in Calley stated that trere were four lower court opinions in that case totalling 263 rages. These apinions appeared in published reporters, such as Federal Reporter Second and Federal Supplement which do not meet Rule 39's print-size requirement and would have uired reprinting. Stern & Gressman at 452. The motion in Calley further stated that the costs of such printing “wouid piace an insurmountable financial burden on your Applicant who has limited funds and who has virtually exhausted those fands in the proceedings below. Indeed, —— will be ;auperized uness the said requirements are ispensed with.” * The distric: court did not address the issue raised by the defendants whether a district court has jurisdiction over a mandamus activn against clerks of the Supreme Court. Aithough there seems to be no authority other than the dis- (Fuotnete continued on following paye) a> 6 No, 78-2206 The district court also correctly held that the defen- dants are immune from Panko’s claim for damages. The administration and control of the Court’s docket are part of the Court's judicial function. And in enforcing the Court's Rules. see S.Ct. Rules 39(4) and §3(5), and ex- ecuting the Court's directives regarding the docketing of eases, see Snider, supra, the defendants were carrying out judicial or quasi-judicial functions within their authority. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to judicial immunity from damage liability for their ac- tions. Brown v. Dunne. 409 F.2d 341, 343 (7th Cir. 1969). Furthermore, the discussion above shows that Panko had no right to have his papers filed or submitted which & continued trict court case cited by the defendants, Barrow v. North Carolina, 374 F.Supp. 1249 (W.D. N.C. 1974), which is not directly on point, it seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an action. Section 1361 seems to grant ee ae but, if read literally, the language of § 1361 would allow a district court to issue mandamus directly against the Justices of the Supreme Court themselves. Perhaps this difficulty is best analyzed as going to the district court's discretion to refuse mandamus relief even if the elements justifying relief had been establish- ed. See Holmes ¢. United States Bad. of Parole, supra, 541 F.2d at 1247. Such an analysis would recognize the difficulty or im- possibility of enforeing an order should the Supreme Court direct the Clerk's office to ignore it. It would recognize alsa the unseemliness of a district judge interfering in the policies and procedures which the Court has adopted to minimize the "Shey roe difficulties of dealing with its substantial caseload. ee Stern & Gressman at 38-51; cf. id. at 680-681 (regarding the need for. and concern of the Clerk’s Office for. uniformity in printing appendixes). These considerations of judicial dis- cretion provide an alternate basis for affirming the district court’s denial of mandamus relief. In addition. analyzing the doubts about the district court's power to entertain a petition for mandamus against officers of a higher court in terms of judicial discretion leaves open the goed of such relief if it could ever be shown, for example. that a clerk of a higher court unjustifiavly refused to docket a case and then un- reasonably blocked all attempts to obtain relief from that refusal from the higher court uself. In this case. as discussed above. both the refusal to docket Panko's cases and the refusal to submit his motions to the Court were fully justified. 9 ee et the defendants could have violated; and that the defen- dants had no duty to file or submit the caer which could have been breached. Thus regardless of the defen- dants’ immunity, Pank : the iieieate. anko had no right to damages from Accordingly, the jud fatal , Pio gly J gment of the district court is af- wee" A true Copy: Teste: Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit USCA 4412—Midwest Law Prihting Co., Inc., Chicago—i0-2-79—300 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_1490%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.