Grayton v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 8, 2013
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-0022
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

JAN * 8 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FoR THE i)isrlzicr oF CoLUMBIA C‘f,',‘,’,'{‘s' §’o‘§,'n'§‘f,*i’;§fi§ §j"(§';',‘ljfr’§§¥ |3 Maurice Grayton, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) t v. ) Civil Action No. ) United States of America et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperz`s. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. lZ(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff, a resident of Chula Vista, California, challenges the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of his motion for leave to proceed informal pauperis. See In re Graytorz, 132 S.Ct. 88 (Mem) (Oct. 3, 2011). He sues the United States and four employees of the Supreme Court’s Office of the Clerk, Compl. at 6-7, seeking to compel "the highest court [to] reopen [his] case, and/or accept [his] filing fee and/or set this matter before a jury trial . . . . Ia’. at 24. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Supreme Court or its Clerk. In re Marin, 956 F.Zd 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992); see Panko v. Roa'ak, 606 F.Zd 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denz`ea', 444 U.S. 1081 (l980) ("It seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or

officers of a higher court to take an action."). Furthermore, "[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign

immunity shields the Federal Govemment . . . from suit." FDIC v. Meyer, 5l0 U.S. 47l, 475 (1994) (citations omitted). The United States has consented to be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80, which plaintiff has invoked, but only for monetary damages and "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." Ia’., § l346(b)(l). Such consent does not encompass the alleged conduct forming the basis ofthis action. See Compl. at ll-l3; FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 478 ("[T]he United States simply has not rendered itself liable under § l346(b) for constitutional tort claims."). Hence, this

case will be dismissed with prejudice A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum

we /t%/

llnited States/District Judge

Opinion.

Date: January z ,2013