Committe v. Harris et al
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/7/17 granting plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and summarily dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be takenin good faith. (Related Doc. 2 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
SCOTT S. HARRIS, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1518
OPINION & ORDER
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Bruce E. Committe, acting pro se, has filed an in forma pauperis complaint
against the United States Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris,
and another Supreme Court employee pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. No. 1.) The basis for his action is that
defendants refused to accept “a general petition” he filed with the Supreme Court complaining
about the “protocol” of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “of deciding cases based on their
form rather than on the basis of the substance of the case.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) The plaintiff contends
this violates his right under the First Amendment to petition the government. He seeks damages
and an order declaring a Supreme Court rule allowing the Clerk to reject improperly filed
Federal district courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), to screen
all in forma pauperis actions, and to dismiss before service any such action that the court
determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).
This action must be summarily dismissed.
The plaintiff’s complaint does not does not set forth a claim that is arguably plausible
under the First Amendment’s Petition Clause. See, e.g., Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th
Cir. 1999) (holding the plaintiff's claims against government officials, alleging that they
violated his First Amendment right to petition government because they did not answer his
letters or take action he requested, not arguably plausible and subject to sua sponte dismissal).
Moreover, none of the defendants may be sued for the relief the plaintiff seeks under
Bivens. See, e.g., Sibley v. U.S. Supreme Court, 786 F. Supp. 2d 338 (D.D.C. 2011) (dismissing
action for declaratory relief and damages against the United States Supreme Court and its
Deputy Clerk, among others).
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted,
and this action is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1915(e)(2)(B). 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.
Dated: August 7, 2017
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?