Patterson v. United States Department of Justice ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRENDA A. PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 21-3339 (RDM)
SCOTT S. HARRIS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Brenda A. Patterson, proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 17, 2021,
against the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Department of
Justice (“DOJ”), the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States,
the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the
governor of Florida, several Florida state employees, Miami-Dade County and its mayor, and the
Chief Judge and Clerk of this Court. Dkt. 1 (Compl.); Dkt. 6 (Am. Compl.). Although the
relationship between these various parties is not obvious, Plaintiff’s claims arise from the arrest
and incarceration of her son, Dimitri Patterson, and subsequent efforts by Plaintiff to petition the
Department of Justice, the Supreme Court, and this Court on her son’s behalf. Dkt. 6 (Am.
Compl.). She seeks a judgment of $400 million in actual damages; “injunctive relief ordering
the DOJ to investigate and intervene on behalf of the Plaintiff;” and a permanent injunction
“enjoining and restraining the . . . Clerk [of the Supreme Court] from refusing to file and Docket
the Petition.” Id. at 69 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 668–69).
Now before the Court are motions to dismiss by Miami-Dade County and its mayor, Dkt.
17; the Florida government officials and state agency (“the Florida defendants”), Dkt. 12; and the
1
Department of Justice, federal government employees, and federal judicial defendants (“the
Federal Defendants”), Dkt. 37. For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT Defendants’
motions to dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Each of Plaintiff’s claims arise from the arrest, detention, and prosecution of her son,
Dimitri Patterson, and her efforts to file civil-rights complaints, lawsuits, and petitions on his
behalf. According to Plaintiff’s amended complaint (hereinafter, “complaint”), Dimitri Patterson
was first arrested in May 2018 by several United States Marshals and Orange County police
officers, allegedly “absent probable cause and a certified warrant.” Dkt. 6 at 4 (Am. Compl. ¶
15). Plaintiff alleges that her son “has never been charged with a crime by the State of Florida”
but that he was held following his initial arrest at the Orange County jail and a correctional
facility in Miami, Florida. Id. at 5 (Am. Compl. ¶ 20). She further alleges that her son was again
arrested by Orange County police officers in October 2018, id. at 5 (Am. Compl. ¶ 22), after
which he was detained in a series of facilities, including the Orange County jail, the Turner
Guilford Knight Correctional Center (TGK), the South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center,
and a Miami-Dade County detention center, where he is “currently being unlawfully detained.”
Id. at 5 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22–23, 26–27). Plaintiff alleges that Florida state Judge Alberto Milian,
Miami-Dade County, criminal defense attorney Jean-Michel D’Escoubet, and the Office of
Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel are “currently engaging in a criminal
conspiracy . . . against [Mr. Patterson], by purporting to preside over” and take part in a “fake
[c]ase” against him. Id. at 13 (Am. Compl. ¶ 87).
Plaintiff has filed a series of complaints and petitions with the Department of Justice, the
United States Supreme Court, and this Court relating to her son’s prosecution and detention in
2
Florida. Those filings began with a November 2017 civil-rights complaint that she submitted to
the Department of Justice, which allegedly detailed “conspiracies to deprive [Mr. Patterson] of
his constitutional rights by Miami-Dade County and its Officers.” Id. at 3 (Am. Compl. ¶ 13).
According to the complaint, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice responded to
Plaintiff’s complaint in June 2018, expressing the Division’s position that her “complaint does
not involve prosecutable violations of federal criminal civil rights statutes” and that “this is not
the type of case that [the] office prosecutes.” Id. at 4 (Am. Compl. ¶ 17). Plaintiff allegedly
filed a second civil-rights complaint with the Department of Justice in June 2021, this time via
the “DOJ Online Portal.” Id. at 5 (Am. Compl. ¶ 25). The DOJ allegedly failed to respond to
that second complaint, aside from suggesting in November 2021 that she “may want to contact
the FBI” and that “the DOJ does not have the resources to follow-up on or reply to every letter.”
Id. at 5–6 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28–29).
Beyond her complaints to the Department of Justice, Plaintiff alleges that she has filed
several petitions with the Supreme Court of the United States on her son’s behalf. Id. at 6–8
(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 30–48). Plaintiff also allegedly sent President Trump a letter in September
2019, detailing “the deliberate indifference by the DOJ, obstruction by the SCOTUS Clerk, and
Officers of the State of Florida conspiring to deprive [Mr. Patterson] of his civil rights,” id. at 8
(Am. Compl. ¶ 53), and she allegedly sent a similar letter to President Biden in April 2021, id. at
10 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 73–74).
Plaintiff and her son have filed actions similar to this one in two other federal district
courts, both of which have dismissed their claims. See Patterson v. Orlando-Orange Cnty., No.
18-cv-950, 2018 WL 6249790 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2018); Omnibus Order, Patterson v. Orange
Cnty., No. 19-cv-21960 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2020), ECF No. 111. Plaintiff has also filed two
3
related lawsuits in this Court, see Amended Complaint, Patterson v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. &
Fams., No. 21-cv-1427, 2021 WL 6196991 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2021), ECF No. 3; Complaint,
Patterson v. Harris, No. 22-cv-697, 2022 WL 16758554 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2022), ECF No. 1, one
of which she contends was stalled by the Clerk of this Court’s failure to docket her petitions for
default judgment, see Dkt. 6 at 18–19 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 138–49). In considering those cases, this
Court has ruled on many of the same questions it addresses today. See Patterson, No. 21-cv-
1427, 2021 WL 6196991; Patterson, No. 22-cv-697, 2022 WL 16758554.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Rule 12(b)(1)
Because “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute,” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)), they have “an affirmative
obligation to consider whether the constitutional and statutory authority exist for [them] to hear
each dispute” brought before them, James Madison Ltd. ex rel. Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085,
1092 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Scies., 974 F.2d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir.
1992)). If the “court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
“[D]efect[s] of standing” constitute “defect[s] in subject matter jurisdiction.” Haase v.
Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The “plaintiff bears the burden of . . . establishing
the elements of standing,” and each element “must be supported in the same way as any other
matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of
evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.’” Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). Accordingly,
4
“[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim [of standing] that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quotation marks omitted)
(alterations in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “[T]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of [standing], supported by mere conclusory statements, [will] not
suffice,” id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678), and the Court need
not “assume the truth of legal conclusions” nor must it “accept inferences that are unsupported
by the facts set out in the complaint,” id. (quoting Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477
F.3d 728, 732 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).
B. Rule 12(b)(2)
To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a basis for exercising
personal jurisdiction over each defendant. See Crane v. N.Y. Zoological Soc’y, 894 F.2d 454,
456 (D.C. Cir. 1990). To do so, the plaintiff must “make a prima facie showing of the pertinent
jurisdictional facts,” First Chi. Int’l v. United Exch. Co., 836 F.2d 1375, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1988),
meaning that the plaintiff must “allege specific acts connecting [each] defendant with the
forum,” Clay v. Blue Hackle N. Am., LLC, 907 F. Supp. 2d 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2012) (quotation
marks omitted). “Mere conclusions or ‘bare allegation[s]’” of jurisdiction are insufficient.
Fawzi v. Al Jazeera Media Network, 273 F. Supp. 3d 182, 186 (D.D.C. 2017) (alteration in
original) (citation omitted).
“When deciding personal jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing—as here—the
‘court must resolve factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff.’” Livnat v. Palestinian Auth., 851
F.3d 45, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Helmer v. Doletskaya, 393 F.3d 201, 209 (D.C. Cir.
2004)). That does not require the Court to “accept inferences drawn by [a] plaintiff[] if such
5
inferences are unsupported by the facts,” however. Id. (quoting same). Ultimately, the Court
must “satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction to hear the suit,” and “may look beyond the allegations
of the complaint” to do so. Achagzai v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 170 F. Supp. 3d 164, 173
(D.D.C. 2016).
C. Rule 12(b)(6)
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal
sufficiency of the allegations contained in the complaint. In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
the Court “must first ‘tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state [the] claim’ to
relief, and then determine whether the plaintiff has pleaded those elements with adequate factual
support to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Blue v. Dist. of Columbia, 811
F.3d 14, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 675, 678). The complaint, however, need not include “detailed factual allegations” to
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A
plaintiff may survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion even if “recovery is . . . unlikely,” so long as the
facts alleged in the complaint are “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. at 555–56 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Complaints by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nevertheless, even a pro se
litigant must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.
Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Accordingly, “[a] pro se complaint, like any other, must present
a claim upon which relief can be granted,” as required by Rule 12(b)(6). Henthorn v. Dep’t of
Navy, 29 F.3d 682, 684 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quotation marks omitted and alteration in original).
6
III. ANALYSIS
A. Florida Defendants
Miami-Dade County and its mayor, Danielle Levine Cava, move to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, Dkt. 17, as do each of the
Florida defendants, Dkt. 11. Personal jurisdiction is, of course, a prerequisite to suit; except
under rare circumstances not present here, “a federal court . . . may not rule on the merits of a
case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over . . . the parties.” Sinochem Int’l Co. v.
Malay. Int’l Shipping Co., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31 (2007). On a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing a factual basis for the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant[s],” Crane, 894 F.2d at 456, by asserting
either general jurisdiction—which “extends to any and all claims brought against a defendant”—
or specific jurisdiction—which requires that “[t]he plaintiff’s claims . . . arise out of or relate to
the defendant’s contacts with the forum,” Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S.
Ct. 1017, 1024–25 (2021) (quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not carried that burden here
with respect to either form of personal jurisdiction, even accounting for the liberal pleading
standard afforded pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
As for general jurisdiction, Plaintiff makes no allegation that the defendants who have
moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should be “fairly regarded as at home” in the
District of Columbia. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924
(2011). These defendants, moreover, expressly deny that notion, see Dkt. 17 at 10, 12; Dkt. 12 at
14–15, and for good reason—Miami-Dade County and the Florida Office of Criminal Conflict
are (self-evidently) “at home” in Florida, and Plaintiff has nowhere alleged that any of the
individuals—Mayor Levine Cava, Governor DeSantis, Judge Milian, or Mr. D’Escoubet—are
7
domiciled in the District of Columbia, see Goodyear Dulop Tires Operations, S.A., 564 U.S. at
924.
As for specific jurisdiction, the amended complaint makes clear that, to the extent these
defendants have engaged in any conduct in the District of Columbia, those activities “lack[] any
connection to the plaintiff[’s] claims.” Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1031. The amended
complaint locates each of the acts relevant to these defendants in Florida, including Dimitri
Patterson’s arrest, Dkt. 6 at 60 (Am. Compl. ¶ 571); his prosecution (over which Judge Milian
appears to have presided), id. at 13–16 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 86–113); id. at 47, 49–50 (Am. Compl.
¶¶ 438–46, 463–73); id. at 55–59 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 525–64); his detention at a correctional center
in Miami, Dkt. 6 at 4–5, 51–52, 62 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15–16, 26–27, 478, 497, 592); and the
mayor’s and the governor’s alleged inaction after they were notified about “a conspiracy” against
Dimitri Patterson and about his unlawful detention, id. at 17, 62 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 124–26, 588-
89); id. at 16–17 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 115–22).
Plaintiff responds by pointing to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, which, she claims, “makes
this Case a Federal Question,” Dkt. 20 at 2; Dkt. 21 at 3, and by arguing that because she has
effected service upon these defendants, she has “establish[ed] personal jurisdiction” over them,
Dkt. 20 at 2; Dkt. 21 at 3–4. But the statutes Plaintiff cites speak to subject-matter jurisdiction,
rather than personal jurisdiction, and although courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over
defendants “based on the fact of in-state service of process,” Burnham v. Superior Ct. of Ca.,
495 U.S. 604, 628 (1990) (emphasis added), Plaintiff nowhere alleges that the defendants who
have moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were served while physically present in
the District of Columbia. Without the necessary connection to the District of Columbia, the
Court may not assert personal jurisdiction over any of these defendants.
8
The Florida Defendants also challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction based on
Plaintiff’s standing (or lack thereof) because the complaint alleges, in large part, injuries to her
son Dimitri, rather than to her. See, e.g., Dkt. 12 at 18–19. Because the Court has concluded
that the complaint as against those defendants must be dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction, however, the Court need not address standing here. Although “subject-matter
jurisdiction necessarily precedes a ruling on the merits, the same principle does not dictate a
sequencing of jurisdictional issues.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584
(1999).
The Court will, accordingly, grant the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Dkt. 12; Dkt. 17.
B. The United States
Turning to the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court notes in the first instance
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the Department of Justice
and against the Federal Defendants, to the extent Plaintiffs sues them in their official capacity,
because those claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Dkt. 37 at 13–16. “Absent a waiver,
sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v.
Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). “[S]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” and “[a]
party bringing suit against the United States bears the burden of proving that the government has
unequivocally waved its immunity.” Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d
571, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see also Jackson v. Bush, 448 F. Supp. 2d 198, 200 (D.D.C. 2006).
Actions against federal officials in their official capacity, moreover, “are treated as suits against
their employer,” i.e., as suits against the United States. Bond v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 828 F. Supp.
2d 60, 74 (D.D.C. 2011); see also Clark v. Library of Cong., 750 F.2d 89, 103 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
9
No waiver of sovereign immunity allows Plaintiff’s claims against the United States to
proceed. “Congress has not waived immunity for suits seeking monetary damages that arise
under the Constitution.” Bond, 828 F. Supp. 2d at 74 (quoting Scinto v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
608 F. Supp. 2d 4, 9 (D.D.C. 2009)); see also Meyer, 510 U.S. at 478 (“[T]he United States
simply has not rendered itself liable . . . for constitutional tort claims.”). Although Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) established a
private cause of action for damages against federal officers sued in their individual capacity, who
commit certain constitutional violations, see Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66
(2001), that cause of action does not extend to federal agencies like the Department of Justice or
to federal officials sued in their official capacity, see Meyer, 510 U.S. at 486 (declining to extend
Bivens to federal agencies), and, in any event, Congress has not waived the sovereign immunity
of the United States for Bivens or similar-type claims against federal agencies or federal officials
sued in their officials capacities, see In re Rodriguez, No. 05-5130, 2005 WL 3843612, at *3
(D.C. Cir. Oct. 14, 2005) (per curiam) (explaining that Congress has not waived the United
States’s sovereign immunity for claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986); see also Boling v.
U.S. Parole Comm’n, 290 F. Supp. 3d 37, 46 (D.D.C. 2017).
Finally, Plaintiff’s complaint, which asserts “negligent infliction of emotional distress”
against at least some defendants, see, e.g., Dkt. 6 at 29 (Am. Compl. ¶ 247), might also be
plausibly read to assert a violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). “The FTCA
represents a limited waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity, grant[ing] the federal
district courts jurisdiction over a certain category of claims for which the United States has . . .
render[ed] itself liable.” Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp., 341 F.3d at 575 (quoting Meyer, 510
U.S. at 477) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). Under the FTCA,
10
however, a plaintiff must “have exhausted his administrative remedy before filing suit,” Benoit v.
U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 608 F.3d 17, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2010), by filing a “written statement sufficiently
describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation” and by “hav[ing] [her]
claim finally denied by DOJ in writing,” Patterson v. Harris, No. 19-cv-897, 2019 WL 4988071,
at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2019) (quoting Hoffman v. Dist. of Columbia, 643 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C.
2009)). Absent any allegation that Plaintiff “has taken any such steps,” the Court must
“dismiss[] [any FTCA claims] for lack of jurisdiction.” Patterson, 2019 WL 4988071, at *5
(citing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)).
The Court will, accordingly, dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) any
claims for money damages against the Department of Justice or against individual Federal
Defendants sued in their official capacities.
C. Judicial Defendants
1. Clerk of the Supreme Court
As for Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against the Clerk of the Supreme Court,
“neither a district court nor a circuit court of appeals has jurisdiction to interfere with” the
Supreme Court’s “supervisory authority” over the Clerk. In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.
Cir. 1992) (per curiam); see also Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979) (“[I]t
seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take
an action.”). This principle bars injunctive relief against the Clerk of the Supreme Court. See
Gillenwater v. Harris, No. 16-cv-495, 2016 WL 8285811, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 12, 2016).
Moreover, for the reasons just discussed, the Court lacks jurisdiction over any claim for damages
brought against the Clerk of the Supreme Court in his official capacity.
11
To the extent Plaintiff asserts a claim for damages against the Clerk of the Supreme Court
in his individual capacity, the doctrine of judicial immunity confers absolute immunity on
judicial officers against such claims and “extends to court clerks who perform tasks that are an
integral part of the judicial process.” 1 Sibley v. U.S. Sup. Ct., 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 344 (D.D.C.
2011) (quotation marks omitted); see also Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460–61 (D.C. Cir.
1993) (per curiam). A plaintiff cannot assert a claim against a clerk without identifying an act
“taken by the clerk[] outside of the performance of tasks within the judicial process.” Sibley, 786
F. Supp. 2d at 344. Tasks that clearly fall within the ambit of the judicial process include the
“receipt and processing” of filings. Id. Because these are exactly the kinds of tasks on which
Plaintiff predicates her damages claims against the Clerk, judicial immunity bars recovery here.
2. Chief Judge Howell and Angela D. Caesar
Plaintiff’s claims against Chief Judge Howell and the Clerk of the District Court for the
District of Columbia fare no better. As Defendants highlight, it is unclear whether Chief Judge
Howell or the Clerk of this Court have been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(i)(3), which directs that, to serve a United States officer or employee in an
individual capacity, “a party must serve the United States and also serve the officer or employee
under Rule 4(e), (f), or (g).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(3). The Court, however, “has discretion to
‘proceed to evaluate the merits’ for a 12(b)(6) determination” even where service is (arguably)
insufficient. Davidson v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 113 F. Supp. 3d 183, 194–95 (D.D.C. 2015)
1
Unlike with sovereign immunity, judicial immunity is a “non-jurisdictional ground[]” for
dismissal. Croley v. Joint Comm’n on Jud. Admin., 895 F.3d 22, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2018); see also,
e.g., Smith v. Scalia, 44 F. Supp. 3d 28, 40 n.10 (D.D.C. 2014), aff’d, No. 14-5180, 2015 WL
13710107 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2015) (explaining that sovereign immunity and judicial immunity
“have different bases under the federal rule” and that the latter is “subject to dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” (quoting Tsitrin v.
Lettow, 888 F. Supp. 2d 88, 91 (D.D.C. 2012))).
12
(quoting Simpkins v. Dist. of Columbia, 108 F.3d 366, 369-80 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). Where, as here,
allowing Plaintiff a second chance would merely “delay[] the inevitable,” Simpkins, 108 F.3d at
370, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate.
Plaintiff alleges that Angela Caesar, the Clerk of this Court, “has refused to file and
Docket . . . Motions for Clerk’s Entry of Default” that were filed in Patterson v. Fla. Dep’t of
Child. & Fams., No. 21-cv-1427 and that she “intentionally subverted the Random Case
Assignment process[] for the sole purpose of funneling the Plaintiff’s filings to a Judge who has
already rendered abusive and malicious decisions relating to the same issues.” Dkt. 6 at 19 (Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 146, 149). And she alleges that Chief Judge Howell conspired with Caesar to
“impede and obstruct the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of civil suits filed by the
Plaintiff” by “refus[ing] to correct the conduct of Caesar” and “tactically authoriz[ing] Caesar by
way of deliberate indifference to obstruct the Pleadings filed by the Plaintiff.” Id. at 17–18 (Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 129, 135, 137).
Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against Chief Judge Howell and the Clerk of this
Court are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, which extends to “all actions taken in the
judge’s judicial capacity, unless the[] actions are taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction” and bars damages suits against “[c]lerks . . . for performance of tasks that are an
integral part of the judicial process.” Sindram, 986 F.2d at 1460; see also Mireles v. Waco, 502
U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (describing a long line of Supreme Court precedents that have found
“judge[s] . . . immune from . . . suit for money damages”); see also Roth v. King, 449 F.3d 1272,
1287 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“It is well established that judicial immunity extends to other officers of
government whose duties are related to the judicial process.” (internal quotation marks omitted));
Thomas v. Wilkins, 61 F. Supp. 3d 13, 19 (D.D.C. 2014). To determine whether a judge was
13
acting in her judicial capacity, courts consider the “nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a
function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they
dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12 (quoting Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978)).
The actions that Chief Judge Howell and the Clerk of this Court allegedly took, including
the decisions not to docket pleadings and the assignment of cases, are clearly “related to the
judicial process.” Roth, 449 F.3d at 1287. “[A] clerk’s receipt and processing of plaintiff’s
attempted filings are part and parcel of the process of adjudicating cases.” Fuller v. Harris, 258
F. Supp. 3d 204, 207 (D.D.C. 2017) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Reddy v. O’Connor, 520
F. Supp. 2d 124, 130 (D.D.C. 2007)). And “[a] judge’s decision to file . . . a party’s motions or
requests is an action routinely performed by a judge in the course of litigation, and thus would
constitute a judicial act immune from suit.” Thomas, 61 F. Supp. 3d at 19; see also Sibley, 786
F. Supp. 2d at 344. Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against Chief Judge Howell and the
Clerk of this Court, then, are barred by judicial immunity.
Nor has Plaintiff stated a claim for injunctive relief. In the first instance, a single judge
of this Court does not have authority to “compel . . . other Article III judges in this or other
districts or circuits to act.” Sibley, 786 F. Supp. 2d at 345; see also Thomas, 61 F. Supp. 3d at
20; Patterson, 2019 WL 4988071, at *3–4. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief against the
Clerk, moreover, is now moot, as the motion for entry of default against the Florida Department
of Children and Families at issue here has since been docketed. See Motion for Entry of Default,
Patterson, 2021 WL 6196991, ECF No. 52. 2
2
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to address the allegedly improper assignment
of her case to the undersigned, that claim also fails. The Court directs Plaintiff to this Court’s
14
D. Federal Executive Defendants
As to Presidents Biden and Trump and the current and former DOJ officials, Plaintiff
asserts violations of the Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42
U.S.C. § 1986, and negligent infliction of emotional distress—although the last of these she
pleads only against one former DOJ official. These claims all stem from the Department of
Justice’s alleged failure to “thoroughly investigate[] [and act on] the details in [Plaintiff’s] [c]ivil
[r]ights [c]omplaint,” see, e.g., Dkt. 6 at 37 (Am. Compl. ¶ 332), and from the Presidents’ failure
to direct a Department of Justice investigation into the prosecution of Plaintiff’s son, see Dkt. 6
at 8–10 (Compl. ¶¶ 53–55, 74–75). The Federal Executive Defendants argue that these claims
should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because Plaintiff’s “entire amended
complaint arises out of her son’s criminal prosecution in Florida” and because she “cites no facts
that demonstrate an actual injury to [Plaintiff] that can be traced to the conduct of the Federal
Defendants.” Dkt. 37 at 21–22.
To establish standing to bring a particular claim, “a plaintiff must have suffered an (1)
‘injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,’ (2) which is ‘fairly
traceable’ to the challenged act, and (3) ‘likely’ to be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’”
Common Cause v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 108 F.3d 413, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan,
504 U.S. at 560–61). “[D]efect[s] of standing” constitute “defect[s] in subject matter
jurisdiction,” Haase, 835 F.2d at 906, and the “plaintiff bears the burden of . . . establishing the
elements of standing” with the “manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages
local rules, which dictate that “a case filed by a pro se litigant with a prior case pending shall be
deemed related and assigned to the judge having the earliest case.” L. Civ. R. 40.5(a)(3).
15
of the litigation.” Arpaio, 797 F.3d at 19 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561). Accordingly, “[t]o
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim [of standing] that is plausible on its face.” Id. (alterations in original) (quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Here, even if Plaintiff has plausibly alleged an
injury resulting from her son’s incarceration, she has failed to establish a causal link between this
injury and the challenged conduct—that is, the Federal Defendants’ failure to investigate this
alleged conspiracy—or that an injunction would likely redress her alleged injury.
As the Supreme Court explained in Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), an “attenuated”
“line of causation” between government conduct and an alleged injury—where, for example, the
“links in the chain of causation” involve “numerous third parties” making “independent
decisions” that “may not collectively have [had] a significant effect” on the complained-of
conduct—is insufficient to establish Article III standing. 468 U.S. at 755–59. That principle
applies here. The chain of causation linking the Federal Defendants’ failure to “thoroughly
investigate[] [and to act on] the details in [Plaintiff’s] [c]ivil [r]ights [c]omplaint,” see, e.g., Dkt.
6 at 37 (Am. Compl. ¶ 332), with the injuries Plaintiff has alleged sustained is “attenuated at
best,” Allen, 468 U.S. at 757.
Neither Plaintiff’s complaint nor her response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss sets forth
the alleged causal connection between the Department of Justice’s alleged failure to investigate
and her alleged injuries. Even construing her complaint generously, drawing such a causal chain
would require speculating that (1) a DOJ investigation would reveal misconduct by the Florida
defendants; (2) the DOJ would decide to exercise its discretion to address such misconduct via
prosecution or otherwise; and (3) such an action on the part of the federal government would
alleviate Plaintiff’s wellbeing and to her personal and professional relationships by, presumably,
16
leading to her son’s release from jail. At each of these links, that causal chain could easily be
broken; to take just one example, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts even suggesting that the
Florida officials would release—and have the authority to release—Plaintiff’s son from state
custody in response to a DOJ investigation or other inquiry. The extent of speculation inherent
in each turn, as well as Plaintiff’s “reliance on the anticipated action[s] of unrelated third parties
makes it considerably harder to show the causation required to support standing.” Abulhawa v.
U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 239 F. Supp. 3d 24, 34 (D.D.C. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting
Arpaio, 797 F.3d at 20). The Court, accordingly, concludes that Plaintiff has failed to carry her
“burden of . . . establishing the [causation] element[] of standing” and that her claim for
injunctive relief accordingly fails. Arpaio, 797 F.3d at 19.
Nor does the amended complaint contain allegations sufficient to satisfy the
redressability requirement. “Redressability examines whether the relief sought, assuming that
the court chooses to grant it, w[ould] likely alleviate the particularized injury alleged by the
plaintiff.” West v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 1228,1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Fla. Audobon Soc’y v.
Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 663–64 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc))). “The key word is ‘likely,’” id.(quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561), and thus “the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a
result of a favorable ruling” cannot be “too speculative,” Allen, 468 U.S. at 752. For the reasons
explained above, the likelihood that an injunction “ordering the DOJ [or its officials] to
investigate and intervene on behalf of the Plaintiff,” Dkt. 6 at 69 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 668–69)—if
the Court could even order such a result—would address Plaintiff’s distress is both speculative
and remote. It requires the Court to “pile conjecture on conjecture,” West, 845 F.3d at 1237,
forcing it to assume without aid from Plaintiff that a federal investigation would likely lead to
Dimitri Patterson’s release and that his release would alleviate the ongoing injuries to Plaintiff.
17
Even accepting the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s amended complaint as true, she has failed
to satisfy the redressability requirement of Article III standing as to her request for injunctive
relief.
At a more fundamental level, moreover, the Court lacks authority to redress Plaintiff’s
alleged injury. Although her complaint is far from clear, construed liberally, it seeks injunctive
relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) or issuance of a writ of
mandamus. The APA authorizes the Court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld,” 5
U.S.C. § 706(1) (emphasis added), but “only where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed to
take a discrete agency action that it is required to take,” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542
U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (emphasis in original). 28 U.S.C. § 1361, moreover, vests federal district
courts with “original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or
employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff,” 28
U.S.C. § 1361, but limits such relief to “extraordinary circumstances,” Power v. Barnhart, 292
F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34
(1980)), where the government official is violating a clear nondiscretionary duty to act, see
Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 617 (1984). These limits on the availability of mandamus relief
are jurisdictional, see Lovitky v. Trump, 949 F.3d 753, 760 (D.C. Cir. 2020), while the limits on
an APA action to compel agency action constrain the Court’s authority to order an agency to
engage in a discretionary investigation.
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege any mandatory agency action or nondiscretionary duty
to act on behalf of the Department of Justice or the remaining Federal Defendants. See, e.g.,
Ning Ye v. Holder, 624 F. Supp. 2d 121, 123 (D.D.C. 2019); Whittle v. Moschella, 756 F. Supp.
589, 597 (D.D.C. 1991). “The decision whether and when to investigate a particular matter is
18
quintessentially discretionary,” Gage v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 22-cv-283, 2022 WL 602451, at *1
(D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2022); see also Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985), and Plaintiff has
not indicated any basis from which the Court can conclude that the Department of Justice or its
employees owes her a nondiscretionary duty to investigate the allegations in her civil-rights
complaint. Plaintiff merely points to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and to 28 C.F.R.
§ 0.50, a federal regulation that assigns the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
Division the function of “reviewing investigations arising from reports or complaints of public
officials or private citizens.” Id. § 0.50(b). Neither provision imposes upon the Department of
Justice or the Assistant Attorney General any mandatory duty to investigate or to prosecute a
specific complaint or allegation of wrongdoing. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are
not redressable by this Court, even if she had alleged sufficient facts to establish a sufficient
causal connection between her injuries and the inaction of the Federal Executive Defendants.
Finally, even if Plaintiff has standing to bring an action for damages (as opposed to
injunctive relief) against the Federal Executive Defendants in their individual capacities, she fails
to allege facts sufficient to sustain those claims. In the first instance, Plaintiff’s claims against
Presidents Trump and Biden, which address their failure to direct a DOJ investigation into the
prosecution of Plaintiff’s son (and President Trump’s failure to “direct . . . the SCOTUS Clerk to
perform their ministerial duties”), Dkt. 6 at 35 (Am. Compl. ¶ 309), are barred by the doctrine of
presidential immunity. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982). That doctrine
protects the President from “damages liability for acts” that fall “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of
his official responsibility,” id., including, presumably, acts such as his communication with the
DOJ and the Supreme Court. See Klayman v. Obama, 125 F. Supp. 3d 67, 86 (D.D.C. 2015)
(indicating that immunity is not “defeated” even “by an allegation that the president acted
19
illegally”). And as to the current and former DOJ officials—who allegedly failed to “thoroughly
investigate[] [and act on] the details in [Plaintiff’s] [c]ivil [r]ights [c]omplaint, see Dkt. 6 at 37
(Am. Compl. ¶ 332)—Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a violation of the Fifth
or Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, a claim for negligent infliction of emotional
distress, or a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
As to her Fifth Amendment claim, Plaintiff alleges that the DOJ officials “arbitrar[il]y
and . . . intentional[ly] obstruct[ed] [her] procedural due process when submitting a civil-rights
complaint with the DOJ,” Dkt. 6 at 25, 27, 36 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 205, 230, 329), and “violated
[her] Fifth Amendment [rights] by the act of deliberate indifference,” id. at 25, 27, 36 (Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 202, 226, 325). But Plaintiff fails to allege that she “has been deprived of a protected
interest in ‘property’ or ‘liberty.’” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 59 (1999)
(explaining that such an allegation is the “first inquiry in every [procedural] due process
challenge”); see also Karam v. Garland, No. 21-cv-0915, 2022 WL 4598626, at *9 (D.D.C.
Sept. 30, 2022) (“To state a due process claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that there exists a
liberty or property interest of which plaintiff has been deprived, and that the procedures the
government provided were constitutionally inadequate.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Nor does Plaintiff identify, in her complaint or her opposition, the procedures that she believes
she was entitled to, but did not receive, when she submitted her civil-rights complaint to the
DOJ. Cf. Hinson ex rel. N.H. v. Merritt Educ. Ctr., 521 F. Supp. 2d 22, 33 (D.D.C. 2007)
(dismissing a Fifth Amendment claim where “Plaintiffs d[id] not identify . . . the liberty or
property interest at stake” or “the manner in which [the plaintiff] was deprived of such an
20
interest”). Absent these threshold allegations, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Fifth
Amendment. 3
Plaintiff’s claims that the Federal Executive Defendants have “invaded [her] mental
solitude” and thus violate the Ninth Amendment, see, e.g., Dkt. 6 at 41 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 370–
381), fare no better. Courts in this district have repeatedly concluded that the Ninth Amendment
“is a rule of construction, not a substantive basis for a civil rights claim.” Rynn v. Jaffe, 457 F.
Supp. 2d 22, 26 (D.D.C. 2006); see also Robinson v. Pilgram, No. 20-cv-2965, 2021 WL
5987016, at *8 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2021); Marshall v. Reno, 915 F. Supp. 426, 428 (D.D.C. 1996)
(rejecting a Ninth Amendment Bivens claim because “the Ninth Amendment does not set forth
any particular guarantees, but is merely a rule of construction”); Slaby v. Fairbridge, 3 F. Supp.
2d 22, 30 (D.D.C. 1998) (explaining that a plaintiff cannot “independently assert[] a cause of
action under the Ninth Amendment”). Even if the Ninth Amendment might be read to affirm the
existence of certain “other[]” substantive rights “retained by the people,” U.S. Const. amend. IX,
Patterson offers no basis to conclude that the right to “mental solitude,” Dkt. 6 at 41 (Am.
Compl. ¶ 380), is among the rights “retained by the people.” Cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381
U.S. 479, 490 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring) (observing that statements made by “[James]
Madison and [Joseph] Story make clear that the Framers did not intend that the first eight
amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution
guaranteed to the people”). The Court, accordingly, concludes that Patterson has failed to state a
3
Plaintiff’s complaint also states that “[t]he Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids
the Federal Government to deny equal protection of the laws,” Dkt. 6 at 37 (Am. Compl. ¶ 334),
but she does not appear to include an equal-protection claim in her complaint. In any event, such
a claim would fail because Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants acted “with discriminatory
purpose” in denying her civil-rights complaint. Richards v. Gelsomino, 240 F. Supp. 3d 173,
181 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676).
21
claim under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. Cf. Robinson v. Pilgram, No. 20-cv-
2965, 2021 WL 5987016, at *8 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2021); see also Liu v. Georgetown Univ., 22-
cv-157, 2022 WL 2452611, at *10 (D.D.C. July 6, 2022).
Nor has Plaintiff stated a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against
former Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore. To make out a claim of negligent
infliction of emotional distress under D.C. law, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that “(1)
[she] was in the zone of physical danger, which was (2) created by the defendant’s negligence,
(3) the plaintiff feared for h[er] own safety, and (4) the emotional distressed so caused was
serious and verifiable.” Harris v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Aff’s, 776 F.3d 907, 915 (D.C. Cir.
2015) (quoting Rice v. Dist. of Columbia, 774 F. Supp. 2d 26, 33 (D.D.C. 2011)). The distress
caused “must have manifested in an external condition or physical symptoms.” Rice, 774 F.
Supp. 2d at 33. Plaintiff has failed altogether to allege these elements: her amended complaint
contains no indication that Gore’s “refus[al] to investigate, intervene, and prosecute,” Dkt. 6 at
29 (Am. Compl. ¶ 247), led Plaintiff to be “physically endangered by [Gore’s allegedly]
negligent activity,” Destefano v. Child.’s Nat’l Med. Ctr., 121 A.3d 59, 69 (D.C. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted), or that she suffered distress manifesting in physical symptoms. See id.
at 29 (Am. Compl. ¶ 251) (describing her injuries as “internal emotional distress, anguish,
substantial damage to her wellbeing, and devastating damage to her family, personal,
community, civic, and business relationships”); cf. Hawkins v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.,
311 F. Supp. 3d 94, 107–08 (D.D.C. 2018) (dismissing a claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress where the plaintiffs made “vague allegations about the[ir] fear” and did not
state “serious, physical manifestations of emotional distress”). And, even more importantly, she
fails to identify any duty that the government owed her to conduct an investigation of any kind.
22
Finally, Plaintiff’s claim that current and former DOJ officials violated 42 U.S.C. § 1986when they were “made aware of a 42 U.S.C. [§] 1985(3) conspiracy” and “willfully turned a
blind eye” to that conspiracy, see Dkt. 6 at 28, 38, 43 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 236, 348, 394), also fails.
“Generally, § 1986 holds civilly accountable those who have knowledge of a conspiracy, as
delineated in § 1985, and failed to prevent such wrongdoing.” Burnett v. Sharma, 511 F. Supp.
2d 136, 145 (D.D.C. 2007). But “[t]he language of this provision” also “establishes
unambiguously that a colorable claim under § 1985 is a prerequisite to stating an adequate claim
for neglect to prevent under § 1986.” Id. (quoting Thomas v. News World Commc’ns, 681 F.
Supp. 55, 72 (D.D.C. 1988)). In other words, a § 1986 claim will fail unless the complaint first
alleges in a non-conclusory fashion “an agreement between two or more persons . . . to
participate in an unlawful act” and “an injury caused by an unlawful overt act performed by one
of the parties to the agreement . . . in furtherance of the common scheme.” Halberstam v. Welch,
705 F.2d 472, 477 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Where, as here, a complaint makes no more than
“conclusory allegations of an agreement” without alleging “the existence of any events,
conversations, or documents indicating that there was ever an agreement or ‘meeting of the
minds,’” the § 1985 and § 1986 claims must fail. McCreary v. Heath, No. 04-cv-0623, 2005 WL
3276257, at *5 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2005); see also Graves v. United States, 961 F. Supp. 314, 321
(D.D.C. 1997) (dismissing claim where plaintiff merely alleged that his former employer
“colluded” with the Department of Education but did put forth “any facts showing the existence
or establishment of an agreement”); Lewis v. Bayh, 577 F. Supp. 2d 47, 56 (D.D.C. 2008)
(dismissing a § 1985 claim where plaintiff “fails to provide any facts consistent with his
allegations” of a “far-flung conspiracy of wildly disconnected events”); see also Burnett, 511 F.
Supp. 2d at 145 (explaining that where “the complaint fails to state a claim under § 1985,
23
plaintiff cannot maintain a claim under § 1986”). Because Plaintiff states only that various
Florida officials and agencies “conspired . . . to deprive the Plaintiff of her right to privacy,” see,
e.g., Dkt. 6 at 47, 57 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 439, 536), without alleging any facts to support the
existence of an agreement between those officials, she has failed to allege a conspiracy under
§ 1985. Her § 1986 claim therefore necessarily fails.
The Court will, accordingly, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for damages and injunctive relief
against the Federal Executive Defendants.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkt. 12; Dkt. 17; Dkt. 35, are
hereby GRANTED.
A separate order will issue.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: January 20, 2023
24