Opinion
Civil Action 22-1631 (UNA)
06-29-2022
VICTOR CLAYTON,[1] Plaintiff, v. MERRICK GARLAND et al., U.S. Attorney General, in his official capacity, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint, Dkt. 1, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant plaintiff's application and dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate dismissal of a prisoner's case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who has been charged with violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1591 et seq. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2. Invoking the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), plaintiff criticizes his indictment under the TVPA, see id. ¶¶ 55-68, and seeks an “injunction requiring defendants to comply with the” TVPA, id. at 2, 15.
The APA authorizes judicial review of “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 704. This “reflects Congress' judgment that the general grant of review in the APA ought not duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action or provide additional judicial remedies in situations where Congress has provided special and adequate review procedures.” Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Dep't of Just., 846 F.3d 1235, 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff's claim fails for one of two reasons. First, he has not identified a decision reviewable under the APA. Second, he has an adequate remedy in the criminal court to challenge the indictment. See Manafort v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 311 F.Supp.3d 22, 33-34 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[T]he Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure offer [criminal defendants] precisely the kind of alternative relief that precludes duplicative APA review.”) Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.