Hobson v. McConnell

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell deciding, on initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), that the action must be dismissed because Plaintiff is seeking damages from a party immune from such relief. A separate Order of dismissal will be entered. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
RONALD H. HOBSON

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15CV-64-TBR

MITCH MCCONNELL

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff Ronald H. Hobson’s pro se,
in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, the
action will be dismissed.
I.
Plaintiff titles his action as “Claim for Damages and Relief of Ongoing Damages as
Caused by Both Action and Inaction Including Discrimination Through Unequal Justice and
Representation” (DN 1, emphasis omitted). He claims that the sole Defendant, Kentucky
Senator Mitch McConnell:
or his agents, knowingly and deliberately accepted a false reply to a
senatorial inquiry aiding in the covering up of a prescription refill error that
turned into deliberate attempted homicide in order to hide negligence of a
Veteran’s Affairs Medical Practitioner at the Paducah CBOC Facility and to
assist in hiding the fact OIG has no accountability at all over Paducah and
Mayfield CBOCs allowing for the murder, attempted murder, and deliberate
ongoing torture and abuse of his constituent veterans, namely, Ronald
Hobson in this proceeding.
He further claims that Senator McConnell, “or his agents, refused to communicate or provide
support any longer after receiving the ‘Officially’ provided misrepresentations of facts from
VISN 15 and Marion VAMC.” As relief, Plaintiff seeks $250,000 in damages from Defendant
for pain and suffering and a $1,000,000 donation to Western Kentucky veterans.

II.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review his amended
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). On review, a district court must dismiss a case at any time
if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In order to survive dismissal for
failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Plaintiff sues Defendant, a United States Senator, for money damages for “accept[ing] a
false reply to a senatorial inquiry.” However, “[i]t is well established that federal, state, and
regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their legislative
activities.” Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 46 (1998). Constitutional immunity provided by
“the Speech or Debate Clause protects all lawmaking activities undertaken in the House and
Senate,” including “actions taken in committee hearings, proceedings, and reports, or by vote,
even though not always literally ‘words spoken in debate.’” Chastain v. Sundquist, 833 F.2d
311, 314 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1880)).
Therefore, the doctrine of legislative immunity bars Plaintiff’s claim having to do with a
senatorial inquiry.1

1

Even if the Court were to construe this claim to be against the United States as arising under the Federal
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq., legislative immunity would still apply. See 28 U.S.C. § 2674
(“With respect to any claim under this chapter, the United States shall be entitled to assert any defense
based upon . . . legislative immunity which otherwise would have been available to the employee of the
United States whose act or omission gave rise to the claim, as well as any other defenses to which the
United States is entitled.”).
2

Because Plaintiff is seeking damages from a party immune from such relief, the Court
will dismiss this action by separate Order.
Date:

August 13, 2015

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.005

3