Mallgren v. Attorney General of the United States of America

District of Columbia

Mallgren v. Attorney General of the United States of America

236 F. Supp. 3d 424, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24202

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedFebruary 22, 2017

DocketCivil Action No. 2016-1770

StatusPublished

This text of 236 F. Supp. 3d 424 (Mallgren v. Attorney General of the United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mallgren v. Attorney General of the United States of America, 236 F. Supp. 3d 424, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24202 (D.D.C. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has sued the Attorney General of the United States of America and Chief Justice John G, Roberts Jr., as the official “responsible for articulating and implementing court rules for the United States of America Supreme Court.” Compl. ¶ 4. The complaint stems from the Clerk of the Supreme Court’s return of “five filings submitted by Plaintiff because they did not comply with Court Rules.” Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that he “has been classified as disabled by means of mental. impairment,” Compl. ¶ 6, and he seeks, among other relief, “accommodations through updates to the rules of the *425 United States of America Supreme Court,” id ¶ 14. .

Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds of sovereign immunity, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s November 30, 2016 Order by responding to the instant motion by January 10, 2017, nor has he requested additional time to respond. Consistent with the advisements in the order, the Court finds that plaintiff has conceded defendants’ arguments for dismissal. The Court is most persuaded by the argument that Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. See Mem. of P. & A. at 6-8; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Consequently, this case will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has sued the Attorney General of the United States of America and Chief Justice John G, Roberts Jr., as the official “responsible for articulating and implementing court rules for the United States of America Supreme Court.” Compl. ¶ 4. The complaint stems from the Clerk of the Supreme Court’s return of “five filings submitted by Plaintiff because they did not comply with Court Rules.” Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that he “has been classified as disabled by means of mental. impairment,” Compl. ¶ 6, and he seeks, among other relief, “accommodations through updates to the rules of the *425 United States of America Supreme Court,” id ¶ 14. .

Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds of sovereign immunity, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s November 30, 2016 Order by responding to the instant motion by January 10, 2017, nor has he requested additional time to respond. Consistent with the advisements in the order, the Court finds that plaintiff has conceded defendants’ arguments for dismissal. The Court is most persuaded by the argument that Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. See Mem. of P. & A. at 6-8; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Consequently, this case will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F. Supp. 3d 424, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallgren-v-attorney-general-of-the-united-states-of-america-dcd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack