More v. Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG - 7 2009
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON. CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Robert J. More, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
) 09 1487
Sergeant at Arms of the United States )
Senate et aI., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff, Robert J. More, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a pro
se complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") that would halt the
imminent vote of the United States Senate on the nomination of United States Appeals Court
Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. The Court will
grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the complaint, and deny all other
pending motions as moot.
The complaint, which admits to being a "being composed ... via a stream of
consciousness," Complaint at 2, alleges that Judge Sonia Sotomayor "conceal [ed]" from the
Senate Judiciary Committee her participation as one member of the three-judge panel in Appeal
No. 08-1263, More v. Monex, by not including it on a list of cases in which she participated. Id.
at 1. The plaintiff in this matter was a third-party plaintiff-appellant in Appeal No. 08-1263,
which was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit because the
notice of appeal was untimely. Judge Sotomayor was one of the three judges on the panel that
authorized the dismissal because the appeal was untimely. See Mandate of USC A, More v.
Monex, Civil Action 04-3214 (RJD) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18,2008) (Docket Entry #88). The plaintiff
asserts that this alleged omission constitutes a violation of "the measures of consideration
guaranteed to him by the Appointments, Freedom of Speech - right to receive information, and
Due Process Clauses of the Constitution of the [U].S. of A." Complaint at 1.
This court is obligated to dismiss a case filed without prepayment of fees once it is
determined that the complaint is frivolous or malicious or f~ils to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This is such a case. The plaintiff has not
identified any private right of action that would permit this suit, and none is evident. Therefore,
this complaint fails state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Furthermore, because the
suit lacks "an arguable basis in law," it is frivolous. Brandon v. District o/Columbia Board of
Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984). For these reasons, the court will dismiss this
complaint on its authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) (requiring in cases filed
by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis the dismissal of frivolous or malicious complaints or
complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted), and will deny the TRO as
moot.
A separate order accompanies this memorand~;;; mono
Date: ~ 'I ")..001
-2-