Court Opinion

ID: 9394022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 21:01:42.357687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.824842
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR, et al.,                    )
                                                )
                                                )
                Plaintiffs,                     )
v.                                              )       Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00850 (UNA)
                                                )
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, et al.,               )
                                                )
                                                )
                Defendants.                     )

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

        This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No.

1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court will grant

the IFP application and dismiss the complaint for the reasons explained below.

        At the outset, the court notes that this matter has been filed as a class action. But a pro se

litigant can represent only himself in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the

United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . . ”);

Georgiades v. Martin–Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (individual “not a member of

the bar of any court . . . may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in [federal] court as counsel

for others”) (citation and footnote omitted); see also U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec.

Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16 (D.D.C. 2003), aff'd sub nom. Rockefeller ex rel. U.S. v. Washington

TRU Solutions LLC, No. 03–7120, 2004 WL 180264 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2004) (“[A] class member

cannot represent the class without counsel, because a class action suit affects the rights of the other

members of the class”) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)).

        Even if plaintiff could file this matter as a class action, the complaint would not survive.

The prolix complaint totals 41 pages and is quite difficult to follow. Plaintiff sues the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the United States, purports to bring his action pursuant to the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and cites, without context, myriad other legal authority. He

demands “1E100,000,000” in damages and seeks various forms of equitable relief.

        The purpose of this action, as far as it can be discerned, appears to be twofold. Plaintiff

most primarily attempts to challenge this District’s determination to dismiss, with prejudice as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim, a miscellaneous action that plaintiff filed in 2020. See

Taylor v. Trump, 20-mc-00001 (UNA), at ECF No. 4 (Memorandum Opinion filed 6/12/20); ECF

No. 5 (Dismissal Order filed 6/12/20), aff’d sub nom. In Re Taylor, 830 Fed. Appx. 2 (D.C. Cir.

2020) (per curiam). Plaintiff also contends that his petition for writ of certiorari in that matter was

denied by the Supreme Court, yet another determination that he seeks to overturn. Although

somewhat unclear, it appears that plaintiff is also challenging this District’s dismissal of yet

another case, namely, In Re Taylor, 22-cv-00744 (TNM), 2022 WL 1001232, at *1 (dismissing

plaintiff’s “incomprehensible” complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 8(a)), aff’d, No. 22-5127, 2022

WL 2920982 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 26, 2022) (per curiam). The second purpose of this action appears to

be “another bite at the apple,” against the Bureau of Indian Affairs, by once again shoehorning

the same frivolous and baseless claims, already at least twice dismissed, into the instant pleading.

        First, Federal Rule 8(a) requires complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of

the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-

79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures

that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive

answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown

v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). When a pleading “contains an untidy assortment
of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold

conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments [,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of

Rule 8. Jiggetts v. D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No.

17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017). “A confused and rambling narrative of

charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort

Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).

       The instant complaint falls squarely into this category. Over the course of the complaint,

plaintiff references wildly vacillating topics, including the federal oath of office; his apparent

conviction in Virginia; false imprisonment; intentional infliction of emotional distress;

corporatism; impeachment; and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Neither the court nor the defendants

can reasonably be expected to identify plaintiff’s claims, which is particularly important here

because res judicata is decidedly applicable; as noted, plaintiff has already attempted, albeit

ineffectively, to litigate many of the underlying claims. See I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund v. Indus.

Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 946 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“[t]he doctrine of res judicata prevents

repetitious litigation involving the same causes of action or the same issues.”).

       Second, plaintiff has no viable cause of action under the APA, by which a court may “hold

unlawful and set aside an agency action” that is, inter alia, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Notably, the APA

provides for judicial review only if “there is no other adequate remedy.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Here,

plaintiff has not clearly identified any final agency action. To the extent that he attempts to

challenge this District’s dismissals under the APA he may not do so because (1) a federal court is

not an agency, see 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B), and (2) plaintiff indeed has an adequate remedy by noting
an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and then if applicable, by filing a petition for writ of certiorari to the

Supreme Court––remedies that plaintiff has admittedly availed himself to.

        Third, the United States possesses sovereign immunity from damages suit, except to the

extent that it expressly consents to suit. Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 30 (1953). A

waiver of sovereign immunity “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text, and [it cannot]

be implied.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to

establish that the United States has expressly consented to suit. Similarly, also applicable here, a

court is immune from damages suit for actions taken in the performance of its duties. Mireles v.

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (acknowledging that a

long line of Supreme Court precedent establishing that courts are “immune from a suit for money

damages”); Caldwell v. Kagan, 865 F. Supp. 2d 35, 42 (D.D.C. 2012). A court “will not be

deprived of immunity” even if the action at issue was taken “in error, was done maliciously, or

was in excess of [the court’s] authority.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); see

also Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11 (“[J]udicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or

malice.”).

        Finally, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to revisit actions taken by the Supreme

Court. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Panko v. Rodak, 606 F. 2d 168, 171 n.6

(7th Cir. 1979) (“[I]t it seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of

a higher court to take an action.”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980); United States v. Choi, 818

F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (stating that federal district courts “generally lack[] appellate

jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts”)

(citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)); Fleming v. United States, 847 F.

Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994) (applying District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460
U.S. 462, 482 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)), aff’d, No.

94-5079, 1994 WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). “The Court can

quickly dispatch with this request for [injunctive relief][;] although judicial immunity does not

apply to requests for injunctive relief . . . the Court plainly lacks jurisdiction to compel official

action by the U.S. Supreme Court justices or their staff.” Reddy v. O'Connor, 520 F. Supp. 2d.

124, 132 (D.D.C. 2007) (dismissing action against Supreme Court Justices and staff for want of

jurisdiction, where plaintiff alleged that he was wronged by the court’s failure to grant certiorari

and sought to “compel official action” by and through injunctive and declaratory relief) (citation

omitted); see Fuller v. Harris, 258 F. Supp. 3d 204, 207 (D.D.C. 2017) (dismissing action to

compel the Supreme Court and its clerks, by way of declaratory judgment, to file plaintiff’s petition

for writ of certiorari, based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction to compel officials of higher court to

take action) (citing In re Marin, 956 F.2d at 340; Griffin v. Thompson, 43 U.S. 244, 257 (1844)).

       For all of these reasons, plaintiff’s IFP application is granted and the complaint is dismissed

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii); Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3). A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: May 9, 2023                                      ___________/s/____________
                                                        RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
                                                         United States District Judge