Scott v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided January 10, 2013·No. Civil Action No. 2013-0039·Published

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 1 0 2013 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbi8 Lanet Renee Scott, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ) Civil Action No. 13 UV39 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed

in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of a case when

jurisdiction is found wanting).

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, alleges that the Securities and Exchange

Commission wrongfully terminated her on November 29,2012, based on the result of a

background investigation that defendant allegedly cited as revealing "dishonest conduct."

Com pl. at 1. Since plaintiff is challenging the alleged non-suitability determination that formed

the basis of her termination, her recourse lies exclusively in the remedial scheme of the Civil

Service Reform Act of 1978, which requires adjudication of such claims by the Office of

Personnel Management, appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and judicial review by

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63, 66 (D.C. Cir.

2005). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: January l__, 2013

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

Scott v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (D.D.C. 2013).

Scott v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission (Scott v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fornaro, Carmine v. James, Kay Coles
416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Circuit, 2005)