MALLGREN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/22/17.(ah)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY BRIAN MALLGREN,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-1770-RC
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 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 (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 (2007)). Consequently, this case will be dismissed
under Rule 12(b)(6). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
United States District Judge
Date: February 22, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?