MALLGREN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 11

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,
Plaintiff,
v.

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-1770-RC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
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

1

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.

________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
Date: February 22, 2017

2