Opinion
Case: 1:14-cv-02177
12-19-2014
Daniel Eric Cobble, Plaintiff, v. Melissa Blalock, Defendant.
Assigned To: Unassigned
Assign. Date: 12/22/2014
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court construes plaintiff's "Petition for 2241 Pre-Convict Habeas Corpus Against Clerk of U.S. Supreme Court . . ." as a civil complaint. According to the plaintiff, a deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts by requiring him to file documents that the Supreme Court could have obtained on its own from the lower courts and by refusing to allow him to file "an original suit" in the Supreme Court. Compl. at 2. He opines that, had he been allowed to file papers in the Supreme Court, counsel would have been appointed to represent him and he likely would have been released from prison. See id. at 2-3. Among other relief, plaintiff appears to ask that the desired matters be filed in the Supreme Court. See id. at 4. The Court concludes that the complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is the designated recipient of all documents filed with the Supreme Court, and is authorized to reject any filing that does not comply with the applicable rules and orders. See Sup. Ct. R. 1. This Court has no authority to determine what action, if any, must be taken by the Supreme Court and its administrative officers. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam) ("We are aware of no authority for the proposition that a lower court may compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has inherent supervisory authority over its Clerk."), cert. denied sub nom. Marin v. Suter, 506 U.S. 844 (1992); Brown v. Suter, 298 F. App'x 15, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of claims against Clerk of the Supreme Court).
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: 12/19/14
/s/_________
United States District Judge