Spengler v. Attorney General of the United States of America

Opinion

FILED

6/26/2020

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL SPENGLER, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 20-1354 (UNA)

)

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se by a prisoner in Los Angeles, California, is before the Court on initial review of plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the in forma pauperis motion will be granted and this case will be dismissed.

A district court must immediately dismiss a prisoner’s complaint upon determining that it, among other enumerated grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has sued the Attorneys General of the United States and the District of Columbia under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., which applies to neither governmental defendant. See Klayman v. Obama, 125 F. Supp. 3d 67, 79 (D.D.C. 2015) (“The United States has not waived sovereign immunity for claims brought under the RICO Act”) (citing Norris v. Dep’t of Defense, No. 96-5326, 1997 WL 362495 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 1997) (per curiam) (other citations omitted))); Miller v. Marriott Int'l LLC, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2019), aff'd, No. 19-7053, 2019 WL 6492628 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 15, 2019) (“the District of Columbia [cannot] be held liable under the federal civil RICO statute”) (citing BEG Investments, LLC v. Alberti, 85 F. Supp. 3d 13, 27 (D.D.C. 2015)).

2

Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: June 26, 2020