Smith v. Griggsby ( 2018 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
RYAN SAMUEL SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 18-cv-00742 (APM)
)
LYDIA KAY GRIGGSBY, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this action removed from D.C. Superior Court, Plaintiff Ryan Smith brings suit against
The Honorable Lydia Kay Griggsby, a judge on the United States Court of Claims. The United
States has properly substituted itself as defendant for Judge Griggsby. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1).
The United States moves to dismiss on a host of grounds under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summ. J., ECF No. 6. The
court issued a Fox order to Plaintiff on August 23, 2018, see Order, ECF No. 7, but Plaintiff did
not file a response. The United States’ Motion is granted for a host of reasons.
First, this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Judge Griggsby, as Plaintiff has not served
her personally as required under Rule 4(i). See Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d
366, 368–69 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Service by mail to her office is not sufficient. See Khan v. Holder,
134 F. Supp. 3d 244, 251 (D.D.C. 2015). Likewise, Plaintiff has not properly served the United
States under Rule 4(i). Accordingly, this case is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5).
Second, Judge Griggsby, and hence the United States, is absolutely immune from suit for
any claim arising out of her dismissal of Plaintiff’s action before the Federal Court of Claims.
See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985); 28 U.S.C § 2674.
Finally, Plaintiff fails to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s Complaint
is inscrutable: “Proceed within federal claim 17-793c. Illegal communication by Interfere. Proper
personnel to motion forward and bring forth all information.” Compl., ECF No. 1-1. He therefore
fails to satisfy even the minimum pleading standard of Rule 8.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the court
dismisses this action. A separate final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: December 10, 2018 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
2