The Court is satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction under the fe dera l question 1 provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 inasmuch as plaintiff alleg es that def endant ha s deprived him of his constituti onal rig hts to acce ss the courts, to due pr ocess a nd to equal prote ction of the law s. SeeCompl. at 5, 10. UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA AL EXAND ER OCASI O, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2168 ( EGS) ) ) J AM ES C. DUFF, ) ) De fe nd ant. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON In th is pro se civil action, plaintiff, a N evada inmate, sues the Dir ector of the Administrative Offic e of the United States Courts for dec laratory and injunctive re lief. Specifica lly , plaintiff see ks to compel the Dire ctor to cr eate an administrative grieva nce proce dure to “

justly adjudicate complaints of misconduct” by the Clerks of Court. Compl. at 5. Def endant moves to dismiss pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 1) for lack of subject matter jur isdiction and Rule (b)(6) for f ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be g rante d. Upon consider ation of the pa rties’ submissions, the Court will g rant de fenda nts’ motion to dismi ss under Rule 12(b) (6). 1 The c omplaint stems from acts alleg edly taken by the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of

Neva da in proc essingplaintiff’s civil ac tions. P laintiff alleg es, among oth e r m isd e e ds , th at th e Cle rk “ mis c ha ra c te ri zed and mis tit le d [hi s] mo tio ns in v ari ou s c a se s” including one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id . at 7. He f aults the Direc tor for f

ailing to pr ovide2

“a pr ocedur e that ensur es a le g itimate investigation by impartial offic er of

[t he] gove rnment.” Id
. at 10. Plaintiff’s claim is set forth on a f orm for a ctions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but such a claim is predicated on the depr ivation of constitutional rights by a per son actingunder c olor of state, terr itorial or District of Columbia law; it is not cognizable a g ainst the named f eder al defe ndant. To the e x tent that plaintiff is suing the D irec tor under § 1983' s fede ral a nalog
e s t a b l i s h e d b y Bivens v . Six Unknown Named A gents of Federal Bure au of Narcotics , 4 03 U. S. 388 (1971), his cla im for equitable r elief f ails beca use a Bi v e ns ’s reme dy

is “damag es or nothing.” Davis v. Passman , 442 U.S. 228, 245 (1979) (c itation and internal quotation marks omitted). The e x traordina

ry reme dy of a writ of mandamus is ava ilable to compel an " office r or employ ee of

the United States or a

ny ag ency there of to perf

orm a duty

owed to plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The plaintiff, howeve r, bea rs a he avy

burden of

showingthat his right to a writ of
man dam us is "clear

andin di sp ut abl e." In re Chene y , 406 F.3d 723, 729 ( D.C. Cir. 2005) (c itatio n o mitte d) . T o th e e xtent th at pl a int if f i s se e kin ga

wr it o f m and amus , h e ha s p ointe d to
no a uth or ity c omp e lli ngthe Di re c tor

to d e ve lop a

g ri e va nc e pr oc e ss f

or c ourt c le rk s a nd “ [i]t is well-settled that a

writ of manda

mus is not available to compel discre tionary acts.” Co

xv . S e c 'y of Labor , 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D .C. 1990) (citingcase s). For the fore g oing r easons, the Court f inds that plaintiff has fa iled to state a c laim upon which re lief ca

n be g rante d and, thus, g rants def endant’ s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to di smiss. A separ ate Or der a ccompa

nies this Memorandum Opinion.
SI GNED: EMMET G. SUL L IVAN UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE DATE: Oc tober 28, 2009