Greene v. United States Department of Justice
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/18/11. (LC,S) re 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Elaine Greene,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States Department of Justice,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:11 CV 1311
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Elaine Greene filed this Bivens1 action against the United States Department
of Justice. In the Complaint, Plaintiff contends the Department of Justice used electronic devices
to monitor her movements. She seeks $500,000,000.00 in damages.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That Application is
granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint is very disjointed and at times incoherent. She contends that the
Defendant is using electronic devises attached to wires on the utility poles outside of her residence
to monitor her movements. She believes these devices are also attached to her automobile and to
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
her telephone. Plaintiff asserts violation of her constitutional rights.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a district court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99
F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised
on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
when it lacks “plausibility.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be
sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required
to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the-[D]efendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. A pleading that
offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this
2
An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the
Plaintiff and without service of process on the Defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is
invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the
reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997);
Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris
v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir.
1985).
-2-
pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th
Cir.1998).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asserts a claim for monetary damages for violation of her civil rights. Because the
Constitution does not directly provide for damages, Plaintiff must select a cause of action which
authorizes an award of damages for alleged constitutional violations. Sanders v. Prentice-Hall
Corp. Sys, 178 F.3d 1296 (6th Cir. 1999). As no other remedy appears to present an even arguably
viable vehicle for the assertion of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court construes these claims as arising
under Bivens.
A Bivens claim, however, cannot be brought against the United States government or any
of its agencies. The United States, as a sovereign, cannot be sued without its prior consent, and the
terms of its consent define the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. McGinness v. U.S., 90 F.3d 143,
145 (6th Cir. 1996). A waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed, unequivocally
expressed, and cannot be implied. U.S. v. King, 395 U.S. 1,4 (1969); Soriano v. U.S., 352 U.S. 270,
276 (1957). Bivens provides a cause of action against individual federal officers who are alleged
to have acted unconstitutionally. Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70
(2001). The United States government has not waived sovereign immunity to allow Bivens claims
to be asserted against its agencies. Id; see Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86
(1994); Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir.1991)(stating that a Bivens claim cannot be
asserted against the United States government or its employees in their official capacities). The
claims against the United States Department of Justice are dismissed.
-3-
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action
is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 10/18/11
-4-
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?